Whoopi Goldberg - She's Leaving Home Bye Bye

When actress, comedienne and television host, Whoopi Goldberg, informed the world of her intention to leave the USA should Donald Trump become President she joined a long line of multi-millionaire celebrities who have made similar threats in the past.

In all these cases 'threat' is the operative word because it gives the impression that the user is taking a principled stand and this in turn can have a short term positive impact on their image. In reality threatening is the easy part, it's following through by packing their bags, going to the airport then getting on a plane and actually leaving the country that will ultimately define their long term image.

Wealthy celebrities threatening to leave the very country that gave them the opportunity to build personal fortunes, which most of their compatriots can only dream about, displays a level of loathing for America and ingratitude that is more than shameful, it's hypocrisy writ large.

It must be said that many of these celebrities may have been blessed with acting or singing skills but were short changed when it comes to an Intelligence Quotient high enough to realise their own imbecility.

Fellow actress and comedienne Raven-Simone has vowed to leave the USA for Canada "if a Republican is nominated" obviously ignorant of the fact that in a Presidential election a Republican is always nominated along with a Democrat and any Independent that fancies their chances.

Morose rapper Kanye West threatens to leave America on a regular basis apparently because of racism; this is despite the fact that, according to himself, he is comparable with Jesus Christ and further more can only be judged by God. With such a divine status and connections it's a mystery how his grievances aren't fixed from on high.

It would be helpful if his holiness Kanye West could explain if America is such a racist country why are Africans risking life and limb crossing deserts and oceans to get there.

(See previous Kanye West article here)

Apart from Raven-Simone, neither Whoopi Goldberg nor Kanye West has given any indication of their preferred destination; there is however another actor comedian, Eddie Griffin, who has chosen Africa as his preferred place of exile from Donald Trump.

Since Africa is such a massive continent containing some 54 independent countries it would help if he could be more specific and narrow it down to a single country. There's plenty to choose from including those bordering the Mediterranean Sea in the north, those bordering the Atlantic in the west or those bordering the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea in the east.

Alternatively he could choose one from the interior such as Congo, South Sudan, Rwanda or Burundi. There is of course the home away from home, Liberia - translated means "Land of the free" - which was home to freed American slaves and modeled on the USA. The capital city, Monrovia, is named after President James Monroe.

Like most post independence African countries Liberia is wracked with corruption, tribalism, civil war and abject poverty. Since these post independence countries were left with viable industries, infrastructure and all the accomplishments of European development the blame lies solely with black Africans and not the white man.

Actor Samuel L. Jackson has decided to head off to South Africa, the Rainbow Nation, for his post Trump exile but I fear he's in for a shock when he alights from his airplane at Johannesburg airport or wherever. If he thinks it's all Nelson Mandela constructed peace, love and brotherhood he'll be wrong.

Since the white people that Jackson hates so much were removed from power the country has been mired in corruption, tribalism, poverty and violent crime that would make South Chicago look like Disneyland.

Hatred of foreigners, including Americans, is now the hallmark of the Rainbow Nation where the term 'xenophobic violence' has joined the lexicon of terms for brutality in South Africa.

Despite claiming African identities I would hazard a guess that Whoopi Goldberg, worth an estimated $45 million, Kanye West, despite pleading poverty, reputed to be worth around $145million along with Samuel L. Jackson, a paltry $170 million, wouldn't last a week living anywhere in Africa despite the fact that white privilege and it's supposed associated racism are long gone.

In African countries the wealth and living standards that our celebrities enjoy in America are dependent upon ones tribe which is nothing other than black privilege. Tribal animosity accompanied by inter-tribal violence is Africa's very own black on black version of racism.

It's odds on that should these America loathing, wealthy celebrities choose exile in any part of their ancestral home they'll regret it within a week and be sheepishly making their way with all possible haste back to the Good ol' USA, Donald Trump and all.    



 

Trump Wars Part I - Blair's Lies Handed Trump His Bush Ammunition

Donald Trump certainly lit the fuse and set off an explosive exchange during the Republican debate in South Carolina when he challenged the veracity of George W.  Bush's justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. If that wasn't bad enough he labelled him a liar without reservation. 

This is a serious charge and not to be made lightly, especially since both George W. and his father George H. W. have conducted themselves with quiet dignity since leaving office and in a State that thinks highly of the Bush family.

As an independent observer with no horse in the race and with experience of the political scene in Great Britain it's obvious that this was not a spontaneous ad hominem attack on the Bush dynasty but a well researched, calculated political manoeuvre by Trump and his campaign team.

It wouldn't be a surprise to discover that the Trump campaign researchers discovered that the publication of the Chilcott Inquiry into Great Britain's involvement in the Iraq war is imminent and would not be complimentary to Tony Blair and by extension President Bush.

The invasion of Iraq was widely unpopular in Great Britain where the controversy surrounding the justification continues to this day. The consensus is that Blair had promised President Bush British support for his Iraq military adventure, then manufactured the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) some time later as justification. He then embarked on a campaign of lying not only to Parliament but to the British people also.

Unfortunately for Blair the British people were not buying his narrative.

Such was the dissatisfaction with the official explanation for British involvement in Iraq the Chilcott Inquiry was set up in 2009 to investigate Blair and the government's behaviour in the lead up to war. The distrust of Blair and his government was such that the inquiry was dismissed as a whitewash before it even began its deliberations.

The controversy began with what is known as the September Dossier published in September 2002 on Iraq's WMD programs. Every single allegation contained in this report was later proven to be false.

Then came the Iraq Dossier from 2003, better known as the 'Dodgy Dossier', in which intelligence on Iraq's WMDs was falsified with further accusations that the dossier had been exaggerated or 'sexed up' by Blair's propaganda department to make matters appear worse than they were to justify war.

The final straw came when British WMD expert, Dr David Kelly, was found dead under mysterious circumstances after his name was leaked to the media as the 'Dodgy Dossier' whistleblower, supposedly by a Blair henchman, when he questioned the veracity of Blair's WMD claims.

This again required an inquiry because of accusations of a whitewash and an official cover-up. The Hutton Inquiry was initiated to investigate and came to the conclusion that Dr Kelly had committed suicide by cutting his wrists using a blunt penknife he had carried since boyhood leaving little or no blood at the scene.

Rightly or wrongly the court of public opinion decided otherwise and duly considered it as murder most foul with yet another Blair government cover-up.

It was also widely reported by the media that other UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix and Mohamed Al-Bradei also cast doubts on the government's WMD claims.
(See here)

What could prove to be most damaging to both Tony Blair and George W. Bush will be the wider dissemination of the 'Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq Memo' also known as the 'Manning Memo'. This was classified as extremely sensitive and contains details of a meeting between Bush and Blair where it becomes obvious to the reader that they had made the decision to invade Iraq regardless of whether Saddam had WMD's or not.
(See here and here)

The Manning Memo was leaked with a copy making it's way to the New York Times who confirmed it's authenticity.

The Chilcott inquiry has been ongoing for 7 years or so and has been plagued by delays and prevarication; this is blamed on the fear that publishing these and other communications between Blair and Bush would cause an irrevocable breach in US-British relations.

The publication of the Chilcott Inquiry will be political dynamite and one can imagine what ammunition it would have provided to Trump and his campaign team should Jeb Bush have remained in the race and continued attacking his adversary in the way he had been during the campaign. He wouldn't stand a chance against Trump armed with ammunition like the Chilcott Inquiry.

As events panned out Jeb Bush has suspended his election campaign therefore Trump has no need to raise this issue again unless the Bush family put their heads above the parapet and decide to campaign against him.

In conclusion it should be recognised that if the Trump campaign is so switched on and farsighted to the point where they can dig up a controversial issue from the past and use it as ammunition in the current election campaign, then Bill and Hillary Clinton's past will be very fertile ground indeed.

Obama Mosque Visit - Fighting The Good Fight, Keeping The Faith

Listening to the speech given by President Obama during his first visit to a mosque on American soil, one would be forgiven for thinking that he either genuinely believes what he is saying or he is indulging in a cynical campaign of historical revisionism in order to present the world's most indulged special interest group with a more benign image for 'fundamental transformation' purposes.

It could also be true what has been suspected since his appearance on the political stage; that his exposure to Islam during his formative years growing up in Indonesia has made him a sympathiser if not an actual adherent of this medieval so called religion.

His written and spoken word consistently extolling the virtues of Islam - while also being quick to absolve its adherents from guilt for the murder and mayhem they are visiting upon the planet - certainly lends credence to this point of view. In all probability it's a combination of all three.

It makes it difficult to come to any other conclusion when the President expresses the sentiment that he "will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction" or when he unashamedly proclaims before the entire world that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam".

Obama's proclamation on who the future must not belong to was delivered at the UN and is aimed exclusively at non Muslims; therefore it is safe to assume that in his opinion the future must belong to those who slander and murder the followers of the Christian Messiah and the Jews and who's prophet, Mohammad - No Slander Upon Him (NSUH) - orders their enslavement or beheading.

Looking at current world events it's an order that is carried out with ruthless dedication by millions of the Muslim faithful worldwide.

Judging by his speech President Obama must also be assuming that the audiences outside of the mosque are blissfully unaware of the rape, death and destruction being wreaked upon Christians, Jews and other infidels by Muslims across the planet from the Philippines in the east to Nigeria in the west, not to mention inside the United States itself.

It must be noted at this point that Muslims have been relentlessly wreaking death and destruction on each other in an internecine bloodbath since their prophet Mohammad's (NSUH) death in the year 632 AD over whether his father-in-law or his son-in-law was his rightful successor.

As with every action and utterance by the UN/EU controlled political order in the USA and Europe, President Obama's visit to a mosque was the result of a political calculation and was meticulously choreographed to further advance the 'fundamental transformation' agenda.

By analysing the actions and rhetoric of the ruling political order in both America and Europe it becomes abundantly clear that Islam and it's adherents are being used as a battering ram for the ongoing generational project to re-order the post war world. This consists of ending the global leadership of white Europeans of a Judeo-Christian heritage and their diaspora despite the fact that it is their leadership that is responsible for the advances of civilisation which has benefited mankind.

The President's conciliatory speech was an echo of the speeches given by the various Presidents and Prime Ministers of Europe with regards to the portrayal of Islam as a 'great global religion of peace' which is morally and religiously equivalent to Christianity. At the same time the mantra that "it's nothing to do with Islam" absolves their Muslim clients from their blood soaked murderous rampage across the planet which they carry out in the name of Allah, as demanded by their prophet Mohammad (NSUH) and as written in their holy book, the Koran.

The British Foreign Secretary, Theresa May, was quick to assert that the Muslim slaughter of the innocents in Paris was "nothing to do with Islam" but even that pales into insignificance compared to the ignominious apologist rant of Mayor Jim Kenny of Philadelphia after the attempted assassination of a police officer in one of his precincts.

Despite the perpetrator dressing in a traditional jihadi robe and quoting the Koran, and admitting on tape that he attempted to murder Officer Jesse Hartnell in the name of Allah on behalf of ISIS because the officer enforced a law that was not shariah, Mayor Kenny obediently ranted that it was 'nothing to do with Islam or the teachings of Islam'. 

He outdid his own imbecility when he added after the police confirmed that it was everything to do with Islam; "That is abhorrent. It's just terrible and it does not represent the religion in any way shape or form or any of it's teachings".  See the unedifying spectacle here.

Rewriting history is a vital part of the 'fundamental transformation' project and it is being progressed by President Obama with his continuing efforts to redefine American values and who they are as a people.  This has been taken to ever more risible lengths with his assertion that Islam 'is woven into the very fabric of American society and it's founding' having been introduced by African slaves.

Nonsense of course since no Muslims were ever involved with the Founding Fathers or the framing of the Republic's founding documents or the establishment of the Constitution after independence from Great Britain.

Despite the efforts of domestic enemies to prove otherwise and erase Christianity from the land, one only has to glance around to note that the United States of America remains a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  It was these principles that provided the moral compass that helped make the American people the most prosperous, generous and free people on earth.

The truth is that less than 10% of African slaves were Muslims, the majority being adherents of local tribal customs including shamanism. Slave descendants today are overwhelmingly Christian with many of their leaders bearing the title 'Reverend' even though their attitude to white people leaves a lot to be desired.

Domestic Islam is confined to a minority of racist bigots, many of them converts, such as the Nation of Islam and its vile leader Louis Farrakhan. More dangerous is the influx of Muslims from the developing world many of whom have been radicalised from birth. Radicalisation includes a visceral hatred for traditional America along with its people, its values and its way of life preferring instead to live under the medieval barbarism of sharia law.

The ominous part of the President's speech which should fill every freedom loving American with foreboding was the insinuation that 'hateful rhetoric' and 'bigotry' is rife among non Muslims which continues the theme that Muslims are victims as opposed to the perpetrators of hateful rhetoric, hate crimes and outright murder.

This is a precursor to Obama banning any criticism of Islam, a blatant attack on the 1st Amendment, and which is already being planned by the UN/EU for incorporation into international law.
(UN Resolution 16/18 here)

Muslim rape and sexual assaults are already censored in many European countries including Sweden and Germany. (See censorship story here)

This kind of historical revisionism has simultaneously been adopted by European leaders including Great Britain's David Cameron and Germany's Angela Merkel providing proof, if any were needed, that there is a concerted effort organised by the UN/EU elite to impose Islam onto white European, Judeo-Christian civilisations with a view to eroding their power and influence to zero.

While Cameron and Merkel are doing this because they have sworn fealty to the UN/EU and their agenda to re-order the post war planet, Barack Obama appears to be doing it to fight the good fight for Islam and to keep the faith as well.

They Felt The Bern In Venezuela Now They Can't Get Toilet Paper

They'll either be throwing their hands up in despair in downtown Caracas today, or splitting their sides with laughter, as Bernie Sanders wins the New Hampshire Democratic Primary by promising lots of 'free stuff' to blinkered voters under the banner of something called 'democratic socialism'.

Mentioning 'democratic' and 'socialism' in the same sentence is itself an indication of delusion which seems to infect all proponents of this tested, failed and derelict ideology.

Both Democratic Party candidates in the Presidential primaries, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton espouse socialism as their core ideology although the more PR conscious Clinton prefers to use the more image friendly labels 'progressive' or 'liberal'.

It doesn't matter how it's packaged, socialism/communism remains a destructive ideology with a proven track record of abject failure, poverty, misery and tyranny.

Although both Sanders and Clinton are careful to hide the connection between socialism and communism it doesn't take much to expose the truth.

Don't be fooled by Sanders using the tag 'democratic socialism' or Clinton using 'progressive', or 'liberal' - "The goal of socialism is communism" so says Vladimir Lenin and he should know.

The relationship, between socialism and communism could not have been put better than by Ayn Rand when she opined thus:

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide".

The theory of socialism and communism is in itself seductive with it's message of fairness together with the abolition of demons such as inequality, poverty, hunger, homelessness and war along with creating a caring, sharing community where everyone wallows in brotherly love.

It's enough to melt the hearts of even the hardest capitalists and convert them into woolly, hand wringing bleeding hearts overnight if only they would listen to wealthy career politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton who, incidentally, happen to be members of the ruling class they claim to be fighting against on behalf of the people.

The reality of socialism/communism cannot be more different and it should not have slipped anyone's notice that neither Sanders nor Clinton ever give examples of a successful socialist country and they avoid like the plague any mention of the plethora of failed socialist countries that blight the planet - Venezuela being one of the latest.

They also fail to mention as they promote their destructive creed, the inevitable lapse into totalitarianism that has always accompanied socialism/communism wherever in the world it raises it's ugly head.

Only last week resource rich Venezuela was hiring a fleet of Jumbo jets to import millions of bank notes in order to cope with their 720% inflation rate.

In this resource rich country the late tyrant, Hugo Chavez along with his successor Nicolas Maduro, have managed to engineer shortages of everything from basic foodstuffs, such as  flour, eggs, meat and vegetables to condoms and personal cleanliness products such as soap, toothpaste and toilet paper.

Sanders, Clinton and the bought-and-paid-for main stream media may hide it from the public during the election campaign but Venezuela is a living example of the utter dereliction, poverty and misery that results from the very socialist policies being touted by these two career politicians.

Shortages of basic goods, food riots, along with poverty and misery for the masses are standard in all socialist/communist countries but it is the inevitable lapse into totalitarianism that should concern people the most.

Despite former US President Jimmy Carter declaring the Venezuelan elections 'free and fair', Chavez and his successor Maduro used intimidation, media censorship and murder to steal elections and remain in power.

With the country and the economy in ruins thanks to the Hugo Chavez socialist revolution, Jimmy Carter remained in denial about his hero and his perverted ideology; he wanted Chavez to be remembered for the 'gains he made for the poor and vulnerable' and opining further that 'we have never doubted Hugo Chavez's commitment to improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen'.
(Carter's nonsense here)

Exactly who the 'we' are that Carter is referring to remains a mystery but it is safe to assume that it's his fellow believers; it is no mystery however to note that if Carter, along with Sanders and Clinton, were forced to live under the economic system they propose for others they may not be quite such enthusiastic advocates.

In conclusion it is worth pointing out to the obviously committed supporters of both Sanders and Clinton the words of one observant commentator who stated with wit that although 'the road to socialism is paved with unwiped a*ses, they will soon be able to attend to their personal hygiene with worthless banknotes.

A previous article on the failure of Venezuelan socialism here

Clinton And Albright Have More In Common Than Their Genitalia

Despite a lifetime of portraying herself as a radical feminist and using the possible historical precedent of being the first woman President, it comes as some surprise to read that Presidential candidate and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is failing to attract the female millennial vote.

What is equally surprising is that despite have a veritable army of spin doctors, media managers and image consultants at her disposal she chose to wheel out another former Secretary of State and superannuated Bill Clinton appointee, Madeleine Albright to help reverse the trend.

The whole idea that anyone should elect the President of the United States of America on the basis of their gender is ludicrous as well as insulting but it is not only old age and gender that these two ladies have in common.

If, as Madeleine Albright insinuated, 'there's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton' then woe betide the Secretaries of State who ignored multiple requests for extra security at diplomatic missions overseas which resulted in the death of Americans and destruction on a monumental scale.

Prior to the 2012 attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi it is alleged by security operatives on the ground that Clinton and her State Department refused multiple requests to beef up security at the mission and it's annex, a decision which cost the lives of four Americans including the Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

This tragedy was identical to an even bigger tragedy in Kenya back in 1998 where, like Benghazi, pleas to beef up security at the American Embassy in Nairobi were repeatedly ignored by Madeleine Albright's State Department. This resulted in the deaths of 213 people including 12 Americans, 32 Foreign Service National employees and a horrific 4,000 injuries.

In both instances the requests for extra security and other related precautions were in response to intelligence reports warning of terrorist attacks but were refused by the State Department.

Reading the official report into the Nairobi tragedy one is struck by the similarity of the attitudes and actions between Clinton's State Department and that of Madeleine Albright's toward local sources on the ground in both instances.

It was revealed that although there were no intelligence reports of threats immediately prior to the bombing there were earlier specific threats against several US diplomatic missions and other targets including the US Embassy in Nairobi. These were discounted because of doubts about sources.

In addition to action taken locally, Ambassador Prudence Bushnell cabled Washington DC drawing their attention to further terrorist threats aimed at the mission emphasizing the embassy's extreme vulnerability to a vehicle bomb. She also requested support for a new chancery. These were refused.

In March 1998 the State Department issued a world wide alert warning of Osama bin Laden's threat against American military and civilian targets. This was not accompanied by any warning or analysis that Embassies in East Africa might be targeted.

In April 1998 Ambassador Bushnell wrote an emotional letter directly to Secretary Albright begging for her personal help to organise a more secure Embassy in the face of mounting terrorist threats plus a warning that she was the subject of an assassination plot. Ignorantly this went unanswered.

This was followed by a letter to Under Secretary Cohen a month later restating her concerns regarding the vulnerability of the Embassy, repeating the need for a new chancery that would meet the current security standards.

These concerns were fobbed off by Ms. Cohen a month later by her reiterating Washington's previous designation of Nairobi as a medium security threat post for political violence and terrorism and due to the general soundness of the building replacing the chancery ranked low on the list of priorities.

Astonishingly Ms. Cohen informed the Ambassador that not only were they not going to replace the chancery, they planned to extend it's useful life and beef up security at some point in the future including a $4.1 million plan to replace the windows.

Ambassador Bushnell wrote Albright again stating that the State Department response was "endangering the lives of embassy personnel".

The rest is history; three months later on August 7 a truck bomb was exploded by terrorists which devastated the building killing hundreds and injuring thousands.

One investigation reported that:

"The State Department has acknowledged that Ms. Bushnell raised questions about security before the bombing. But a close examination of events in the year before the assaults, based on interviews with officials throughout the U.S. government, shows her concerns were more intense, more well-founded, more specific, and more forcefully expressed than has previously been known".

And to add further insult to the victims of the carnage and a demonstration of the incompetence that would be repeated in Benghazi some fourteen years later the same report concluded thus:

"The CIA and the FBI had been amassing increasingly ominous and detailed clues about potential threats in Kenya, officials said. But the State Department bureaucracy still dismissed Ms. Bushnell. She was even seen by some at the State Department as a nuisance who was overly obsessed with security, according to one official".
(See the report here)

Politicians and their associated bureaucrats are quick to use the "lessons have been learned" get-out-of-jail card but as the people have learned to their cost this is nothing more than a meaningless soundbite deliberately used to close down debate and absolve the guilty parties from blame and sanction.

Looking back at the attitude and behavior of Clinton and Albright before and after the terrorist outrages in Nairobi and Benghazi, not to mention the embassy bombing in Dar es Salaam, it is abundantly clear that they are cast from the same mold, they hold the same views and exhibit the same arrogant and dismissive attitude to the tragedies that unfolded on their watch: they are both in charge of everything and responsible for nothing, they dismiss any criticism and ignore the victims and their loved one's.

If there's a special place in hell for anyone, Clinton and Albright will be at the front of the line.  

Unjust Geneva Convention - Soldier Rots In Prison Warmonger Stays Free

When it was revealed that Her Majesty's Shadow Secretary of Defence, Emily Thornberry, has received political donations from a dodgy law firm, Leigh Day, who scoured the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan searching for 'victims of abuse' supposedly perpetrated by British soldiers with a view to suing them, it raised the age old issue of what are acceptable or unacceptable actions during warfare.

(Dodgy law firm get busted here)

It came as news to millions of people, myself included, that there exists a 145-strong department called the Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) charged with investigating these allegations and who's caseload has exceeded 1,500 cases. The investigation into whether Iraqi's or Afghans were ill-treated or unlawfully killed by soldiers will drag on until 2019 at the earliest and cost at least
$88 million.

How that affects soldiers efficiency on the battlefield is anyone's guess but it can hardly be conducive to their morale.

Law firms like Leigh Day and the IHAT who together swim in the fetid swamp of the recently created human rights industry would serve justice better if they investigated with equal vigour those who send soldiers into battle in the first place.

The infamous case of jailed-for-life Royal Marine Sgt Alexander Blackman, previously designated Marine A and the man who got him involved the war, Prime Minister Tony Blair is a case in point.
(Marine A prosecution here)

No one could have put the issue in clearer language than author and journalist George Orwell who opined on the issue way back in 1943. It's worth quoting part of his article from his Tribune newspaper column, As I Please, to illustrate the point:

"I note the surprise with which many people seem to discover that war is not a crime. Hitler, it appears, has not done anything actionable. He has not raped anybody, nor carried off any pieces of loot with his own hands, nor personally flogged any prisoners, buried any wounded men alive, thrown any babies into the air and spitted them on his bayonet, dipped any nuns in petrol and touched them off with church tapers - in fact he has not done any of the things which any enemy nationals are credited with doing in war-time. He has merely precipitated a world war which will have cost twenty million lives before it ends. And there's nothing illegal in that".

Since this was written the Geneva and Hague Conventions have been updated and re-written to clarify the laws of war with the noble intention of protecting prisoners and non-combatants among a myriad of other things.

In light of the fact that the war which resulted in Sgt Blackman being jailed for finishing off a fatally wounded Taliban terrorist was justified by Tony Blair using doctored intelligence reports and outright lies and also by the fact that he is free as a bird, it is abundantly clear that the Geneva and Hague Conventions make the serving soldier doing what he is trained to do liable to prosecution while absolving the warmonger from any responsibility or guilt whatsoever.

Blair lied to Parliament and along with his communications chief Alastair Campbell deliberately 'sexed up' the dossier on weapons of mass destruction and other matters in order to justify waging war on Iraq which posed no threat to Great Britain or it's people.
( One dodgy dossier story here)

In the context of Orwell's quote Tony Blair was party to precipitating a war which has so far cost the lives of anywhere between two-hundred thousand and a million souls, most of them civilians and it appears he has done nothing illegal.

Blair's actions have not  justified prosecution under the Geneva and Hague Conventions therefore they are not fit for purpose and consequently they should be considered invalid for deciding guilt for the causes and actions in modern international armed conflicts.

It must also be acknowledged that in addition to the appalling casualties resulting from Blair's war it has also precipitated the rise of ISIS which in turn has resulted in murder and mayhem across the world and a further untold increase in casualties.

Orwell ended his article thus:

"Nevertheless, a world in which it is wrong to murder an individual civilian and right to drop a thousand tons of high explosive on a residential area does sometimes make me wonder whether this earth of ours is not a loony-bin made use of by some other planet".

In conclusion, Sgt Blackman's action of dispatching a single terrorist to claim his virgins in paradise was done under unimaginable stress in the heat of battle and is trivial compared to horrendous casualties caused by the illegal actions of Tony Blair which were decided at his leisure with no stress at all.

Sgt Blackman is a hero who did what he was trained to do and therefore he should be released forthwith with his rank and benefits restored.