I Feel a Bit Sorry For the DUP.

As you may have heard Britain is still deep in the grip of the Brexit Saga.

This situation is entirely the fault of the British Parliament and its MP's. They are continuing to refuse to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement.

Amongst Britain's MP's there are a small group of around 100 Hard Brexiteers. They see opposing the Withdrawal Agreement as a way to ensure a No Deal Brexit. A fantasy which even they must have realised is unsustainable long term.

The much larger and more problematic group of MP's are the Remoaners. Numbering around 300 they see opposing the Withdrawal Agreement as a way to overturn the result of the public referendum and block Brexit entirely.

Throughout this saga the Remoaners have frequently liked to claim that the British Parliament is Sovereign and powerful. That is simply not true.

While Britain is a member of the EU its Parliament is a powerless vassal of the EU.

British laws are passed by the EU issuing a directive. Those European Directives then automatically become British laws through the Statutory Instrument of the European Communities Act of 1972.

British MP's have no input or power whatsoever over the passing of these new laws. Yet they are paid £77,000 a year to literally sit there on their arses doing nothing. Understandably they are deeply opposed to seeing that status quo changed.

Britain has not yet left the EU. However people are already starting to wake up to the fact that the current crop of British MP's are simply not up to the job and need to be replaced.

The Remoaners strategy to block Brexit has been laid bare by the ongoing process of Indicative Votes.

The dishonesty and just open lies being told by the Remoaners during this process has been truly shocking.

Firstly there has been the claim that Article 50 has been extended and the date of Brexit delayed beyond March 29th (29/3/19).

That is something which is not a matter of opinion or open to interpretation. It is simply untrue.

Extending Article 50 requires the 2018 EU Withdrawal Act to be amended.

The British Supreme Court is very clear on the fact that cannot be done by executive action known as; "Royal Prerogative." It can only be done through the passing of a specific Statutory Instrument.

As I write no such Statutory Instrument has been passed. Meaning that Article 50 has not been extended and the date of Brexit continues to be March 29th (29/3/19).

Despite this Remoaners have been claiming, for a full week now, and continue to claim that Article 50 has been extended and the date of Brexit has been delayed.

This is no more true than me claiming the Earth is flat. Or that the Sun orbits around that flat Earth.

Then there is the Indicative Votes themselves. Remoaners have claimed that this is Parliament taking back or seizing control of the Brexit process.

Again this is not something which is a matter of opinion or open to interpretation. It is simply untrue.

The Indicative Votes came about due to Parliament adopting an amendment in a vote on Monday (25/3/19). Known as the; "Letwin Amendment."

The Letwin Amendment simply made a request of the government. That the business put forward by MP's be given priority over the business put forward by the government on one particular day. Wednesday (27/3/19).

The business the government wanted to put forward on Wednesday (27/3/19) was a series of Indicative Votes. So they had absolutely no problem granting the request expressed in the Letwin Amendment.

As the name suggests the Indicative Votes are there to give an indication of MP's opinions. If any of them pass they don't even have the status of a request upon the government. They most certainly don't bind the government to adopting the opinion expressed.

Yesterday (27/3/19) British MP's held their first round of Indicative Votes. They considered 8 motions. None of which they agreed upon.

British MP's were though able to agree on one thing yesterday. The lower house passed the Statutory Instrument needed to extend Article 50. By a majority of 441 votes to 105.

That is the Remoaners entire strategy.

They are attempting to make it appear that Brexit is impossible. In order to trick voters into allowing them to seek extensions to Brexit and eventually do away with it entirely.

This is the only reason that EU Council (EUCO) President Donald Tusk offered the possibility of a Brexit extension until April 12th (12/4/19). While emphasising the online petition to scrap Brexit and the protest march calling for the same.

That is a serious problem. It is something that could be construed as an act of war by EUCO President Tusk against Britain.

This is exactly the type of thing that Russia is accused of doing in a host of Eastern European nations which are seeking to join the EU.

It is exactly the type of thing that Russia accuses the EU and the US of doing in Eastern European nations which don't want to join the EU. Such as Ukraine.

It is something we have seen in Syria.

Back in 2011 foreign powers wishing to overthrow the Syrian government conducted a series of online influence operations. The circulating of petitions and social media hashtags etc. They backed those online influence operations with a series of small protest marches.

Figures in the Syrian military and the Syrian Parliament were then encouraged to defect to the foreign power. Setting up a rival government and military calling itself the Syrian National Council and Free Syrian Army respectively.

They then tried to force the Syrian President to stand down. By putting around breathless rumours that he had already resigned.

Eight years later I hope I don't have to tell you that those rumours are not something which is a matter of opinion or open to interpretation. They were simply untrue.

As the results of the Indicative Votes were being announced Israel conducted airstrikes against the Syrian city of Aleppo. The focus of many online influence campaigns.

That should not be considered a coincidence.

That 441 MP's voted to support the Statutory Instrument extending Article 50 means they have sided with a foreign entity against the British Parliament. A foreign entity which is seeking to subvert the British democratic process and possibly overthrow the British government.

That decision automatically excludes those 441 individuals from acting as Members of the British Parliament.

Even the Syrian MP's who defected to a foreign power in 2011 had the decency to resign from the Syrian Parliament.

In the middle of all this you have the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Their 10 MP's are the only ones who have any legitimate objections to the Withdrawal Agreement.

They specifically object to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland under the Withdrawal Agreement.

This creates a slightly different set of rules between the Northern Ireland and the British mainland. What's known as; "Regulatory Divergence."

At around 12:20 on 28/3/19 (UK date) I will pick that up later.

Edited around around 20:10 on 30/3/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another place;

I should start by pointing out that the date of Brexit has now changed. To April 12th (12/4/19).

It changed at around sundown yesterday (29/3/19).

You'll notice that's almost eight full days after Remoaner MP's and journalists tried to convince you that it had already changed.

As I said the DUP are the only party who have a legitimate objection to the Withdrawal Agreement. They are opposed to the regulatory divergence created by the "Backstop" Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.

In the past I've said that I think they are being overly sensitive about this.

After all there is already significant regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the British mainland/ The vehicle number plates, the banknotes, policing and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

That though is the DUP's argument.

The Backstop is just the latest in a long line of small pieces of regulatory divergence they've been forced to accept. Their British identity is slowly being chipped away piece-by-piece.

I still think the DUP are being overly concerned about the Backstop.

After all the plan of the Withdrawal Agreement is that there is a two year Transition Period. If an agreement is not reached by then the Transition Period can be extended by another year. Only if that fails will the Backstop be invoked.

So it is no-one's plan for the Backstop to be invoked. It is an insurance policy there only if everything else fails. Britain adopting the Withdrawal Agreement does not automatically mean the Backstop will ever be used.

However given the current shambles of British politics not even I feel reassured Britain will be able to reach an agreement with itself before the extended Transition Period expires. So the DUP are right to be cautious.

That said though the current problems in the Brexit process are entirely the fault of the British Parliament.

Negotiations between Britain and the EU ended back in November 2018. Now we're really all just waiting for the British Parliament to get its act together.

As I've said the main problem is the roughly 300 Remoaners. They see opposing the Withdrawal Agreement as a way to overturn the result of the public referendum and block Brexit entirely.

That position becomes wholly untenable the moment Britain leaves the EU. I would think that over the course of three years even the most stubborn Remoaner would finally start working in the national rather than their own selfish self-interest.

Then there is the concern that the EU will try and trap Britain in the Backstop. In light of EU Council (EUCO) President Tusk's disgusting plot to try and trap Britain in the EU that is very hard to argue against.

However EUCO President Tusk is plotting to trap Britain in the EU. That is a very different proposition from trying to trap Britain in the Backstop.

The big difference is money.

While Britain is a member of the EU it contributes large sums to the EU budget. In turn the EU budget contributes large sums of money to EUCO President Tusk's native Poland.

That EU money is used to fund numerous social and civil society programs in Poland. Promoting things like gender equality, gay rights, media freedom etc.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but the name George Soros does come up a lot in this area. As it tends to do every time something undemocratic happens in the US. Such as the attempts to block Judge Kavanaugh.

In Poland a lot of that EU money is used to pay their salaries of a lot of EUCO President Tusk family, friends and supporters.

So the EU doesn't directly fund Tusk's Civil Platform (PO) Party. It just pays the salaries of a lot of people who fund Tusk's Civil Platform Party.

In much the same way that the Renewable Heat Initiative didn't directly fund the DUP. Except....

Poland's governing Law & Justice Party (PiS) are already very concerned about EU money being used to fund political activity in Poland. In what seems to be a pretty clear attempt to undermine Polish democracy.

So if the end of Britain's contributions to the EU budget do result in a cut in EU spending it's likely to be Tusk's family, friends and supporters who find themselves personally out of pocket.

Under the Withdrawal Agreement Britain's contributions to the EU budget end in 2020. Before the Transition Period has ended, let alone been extended. A good two years before the Backstop would ever be invoked

So under the Backstop the EU will have already lost its main incentive to trap Britain into anything.

There is also a massive disincentive for the EU to try and trap Britain in the Backstop.

The Backstop allows Northern Ireland to enjoy all the advantages of remaining a part of the EU Single Market. While at the same time allowing Britain, as a whole, to opt out of the Free Movement of People/Human Capital.

The Free Movement of People/Human Capital is one of the Five Pillars of the EU. Many feel that without it the EU does not exist.

Despite this there are many, many existing EU member states who would like to see that Pillar fall.

Nations which are in the EU Single Market but are not full EU members, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, are particularly keen to be allowed to opt out of the Free Movement of People/Human Capital.

Fans of Manchester Utd, Sea Ferries and cheap, transatlantic airfares will notice they've been very vocal on this point in the past week.

The longer Britain remains in the Backstop the harder and harder it is going to be for the EU to demand that others have uphold the Free Movement of People/Human Capital.

Then there is the fact that both the Withdrawal Agreement and the Backstop contain legally binding guarantees to prevent Britain being trapped in the Backstop. Despite what many liars may claim.

You'd be alarmed by how many people on the British mainland think the Northern Irish border is a straight line East-to-West from Newry to Silgo.

So like most people on the British mainland I'm not particularly interested in the issue of regulatory divergence.

However that's not the point.

The point is that it is important to people in Northern Ireland. So important that enough of them have voted to give the DUP 10 MP's.

Those 10 MP's are obligated to carry out the mandate voters have given them by opposing anything which increases regulatory divergence.

In a functioning British democracy all the other MP's would respect the DUP's mandate and vote for the Withdrawal Agreement. Allowing it to be adopted.

This would allow the DUP to make a point of voting against the Withdrawal Agreement.

As negotiations move through the Transition Period the DUP's objections to the Backstop would be noted and respected.

As a way to focus everyone's minds on making sure the Backstop is never used.

20:25 on 30/3/19 (UK date).

No Legal Force Nor Effect.

The British Parliament is currently conducting it's Indicative Votes on Brexit.

All you need to know about this is right there in the name; "Indicative."

The purpose is to allow MP's to indicate their hopes, dreams, fears and other emotions regarding Brexit. It in no way affects Britain's Brexit policy. Let alone the EU's Brexit policy.

Quite why MP's would want to indicate to voters that they still do not understand the Brexit process is completely beyond me. However that is their choice.

The much more pressing issue is over whether Article 50 has been extended and the date of Brexit has been changed from March 29th (29/3/19).

On Monday (25/3/19) Prime Minister Theresa May claimed that it had been. That she has used an executive action or; "Royal Prerogative" to change the date at the March 22nd (22/3/19) EU Council (EUCO) Summit. At which the EU's offer to extend Article 50 was made.

That legal position is wholly incorrect and unsupported. In the winter of 2016/17 there was a huge Court case, brought by Gina Miller, over whether Royal Prerogative can be used in matters relating to Article 50.

The ruling of the British Supreme Court was that Royal Prerogative cannot be used in matters relating to Article 50. Particularly when it involves amending an Act of Parliament. Extending Article 50 requires the 2018 EU Withdrawal Act to be amended.

During Monday's Parliamentary debate the MP Peter Bone challenged Prime Minister May on this matter. Taking her down with a sniper's precision.

Late in the bad tempered debate he asked the friendly, jokey question of whether Prime Minister May would like to pop over to the EU and unilaterally adopt the Withdrawal Agreement.

Due to his tone and the fact that he didn't actually use the words; "Royal Prerogative" Prime Minister May mistook this for a sign of friendship. Responding that while she would like to she's not allowed to use executive action in this way.

Not realising that in doing so she'd just admitted the legal position she'd stated in her opening remarks is wholly incorrect and unsupported.

Today Prime Minister May faced the weekly; "Prime Ministers Questions (PMQ's)" in Parliament. There she attempted to put forward another argument as to why the date of Article 50 had been extended.

She claimed that Parliament had already given her the authority to do so. By instructing her to seek an extension to Article 50 from the EU.

You do not need to be a lawyer to notice the problem with that argument.

Parliament gave the Prime Minister permission to "Seek" an extension to Article 50. It did not give her permission to "Accept" an EU offer of an extension.

The differences in meaning between the word; "Seek" and the word; "Accept" are clear and well understood.

These two failed legal arguments of course come from the same source which claims the Withdrawal Agreement does not contain legally binding guarantees. Another false claim which has been a major sticking point in adopting the Withdrawal Agreement.

On the EU's side no-one has formally commented in this Article 50 issue.

However on Monday (25/3/19) the European Commission declared that it had completed its preparations for extending Article 50.

The European Commission is the EU's civil service. So while it is able to prepare plans on all sorts of things it lacks the legal authority to unilaterally enact any of those plans.

The European Commission announcing that it has completed its preparations for an Article 50 extension to well be viewed as a hint to the British Civil Service. That it too also needs to start preparations to extend Article 50.

Prime Minister May's Monday (25/3/19) statement coincided almost exactly with US President Trump signing a declaration. Recognising the Golan Heights as part of Israel.

This declaration seems to have emerged as something of a euphemism for the Article 50 issue.

The United Nations (UN) went first. Announcing on Tuesday (26/3/19) that the unilateral declaration has neither legal force nor effect.

When it comes to matters of international law the UN are the gold standard experts. Disputes under international law are either resolved at the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Or the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Which is a body of the UN.

Today (27/3/19) the EU has come out and restated the UN's position. The unilateral declaration has neither legal force nor effect.

Just before the start of today's (27/3/19) Indicative Votes debate the Speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, has stated that if there is to be another vote on the Withdrawal Agreement there must be a substantial, material change to the motion.

So the British government really needs to hurry up and reintroduce the Withdrawal Agreement as the statutory instrument required to extend Article 50.

Otherwise, on Friday (29/3/19) we're going to find ourselves in a very bizarre situation.

Where Britain claims that it is still a member of the EU.

Only to have the EU explain to Britain that it has already left.

17:00 on 27/3/19 (UK date).

I Am Going To Bed.

Earlier today (26/3/19) my mother came up to visit. Not the Remoaner, the other one.

We went to a popular Italian chain restaurant. Pizza Express, rather than Zizzi's or Prezzo.

Whatever you call it the menu for that restaurant carries about as much weight in international law as "Responsibility to Protect (R2P) ."

The non-binding internal United Nations Security Council (UNSC) guidance on when and where Chapter 7 of the Charter can be invoked.

Former UK Attorney General Dominic Grieve has cited R2P as an example of; "International Law." As has current UK Attorney General Geoffrey Cox.

Apparently neither of them realising that procedures of the UN Security Council get reviewed by other lawyers. Quite a few of them in fact.

I probably won't be up in time for Prime Minister's Questions (PMQ's). After all I've been drinking since lunch.

I hope though that Theresa May has learnt one thing;

"If you're attempting to intimidate Hard Brexiteers with a legal argument."

"It's best to check that the legal argument is actually valid."

Otherwise you're left looking extremely foolish.

And the date of Brexit remains March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).

02:50 I'm 27/3/19 (UK date).

Well, This is an Omnishambles.

Last Thursday (21/3/19) the British Prime Minister Theresa May, on behalf of the British government, attended the European Union (EU) Council (EUCO) summit. There she made a request for the date of Brexit to be pushed back until June 30th (30/6/19) by extending the Article 50 process.

The EU leaders rejected that request. They made a counter-offer, to extend Article 50 until May 22nd (22/5/19) on condition the Withdrawal Agreement was accepted by the UK Parliament. Failing that extending Article 50 until April 12th (12/4/19).

I describe this as the EU's counter-offer because EUCO decisions are not binding until all EUCO members give them effect. Currently Britain is a member of EUCO.

You may remember that the EU/Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) was approved by EU leaders in August 2014. However it has still not come into full effect. Even provisional approval was not given until September 2017 due to delays in getting it past the subnational, regional Parliament in Belgium's Wallonia.

EUCO decisions like extending Article 50 are normally given effect through executive action. Essentially at the discretion of the national leader. In Britain this type of executive action is known as; "Royal Prerogative."

In the winter of 2016/17 there was a massive Court case in Britain, brought by Gina Miller. Over whether Royal Prerogative could be used in matters relating the Article 50.

The ruling was that it can't be. Parliament must be given a; "Meaningful Say" in matters relating to Article 50.

That ruling is entirely why we are in this current mess of Parliament being able to reject the Withdrawal Agreement over and over again. Requiring Britain to seek an extension to Article 50 in the first place.

Therefore to give effect to the EUCO's counter-offer a statutory instrument has to pass through both houses of the British Parliament and receive Royal Assent - signing by the Monarch.

Throughout Britain's membership of the EU that statutory instrument has been automatic. Through the European Communities Act 1972. However as a result of the Gina Miller case that was repealed in June 2018.

So in order to move the date of Brexit Britain needs to introduce a specific statutory instrument for that purpose. I was under the impression that the EU's intent was that Britain would do that by making the Withdrawal Agreement the statutory instrument.

I thought that was so obvious I'd worked it even before the EUCO press conference announcing the counter-offer. One of the things which made those few days so stressful for me was deciding to just say it out loud. Or only subtly hint at in the hope people would notice.

In the end I did just come out and said it. Although it seems I didn't state it clearly enough for the British government to understand.

Today (25/3/19) Prime Minister May updated Parliament on the EUCO summit. She started by claiming that the Article 50 had already been pushed back. Claiming she had used Royal Prerogative to give the offer effect at the summit.

That is just simply wrong. The UK Supreme Court has already ruled that Royal Prerogative cannot be used in matters relating to Article 50. If it hadn't the Withdrawal Agreement would have just been adopted using Royal Prerogative.

Prime Minister May has gone on to compound her error by introducing a statutory instrument which is separate from the Withdrawal Agreement. In fact she is not going to introduce the Withdrawal Agreement at all. The failure to combine the two means it lacks support.

Obviously the British government can withdraw that statutory instrument from Parliament at any time before it receives Royal Assent.

If it doesn't chaos is likely the reign between now and April 12th (12/4/19).

I am under the impression EU chose that date specifically because of a decision made by Speaker of the House of Commons, the lower house of Parliament.

On March 18th (18/3/19) the Speaker Bercow, ruled that defeated motions and amendments cannot be reintroduced within the same Parliamentary session. Motions on calling a second Brexit referendum and giving Parliament control of the Brexit process were introduced and defeated on March 14th (14/3/19).

So even under the most liberal interpretation of Speaker Bercow's ruling those amendments cannot be reintroduced until April 23rd (23/4/19) at the earliest. Sadly I think some people actually need to be told that April 23rd occurs AFTER April 12th.

All indications are though that Speaker Bercow is going to disregard his own ruling and the legal precedent behind it. He is going to allow Parliament to seize control of Brexit. Remoaner to the core they will likely try to scrap Brexit all together.

This puts the EU in an extremely difficult position.

Does it continue to recognise the British government as the representative of the nation and the British people.

Or does the EU recognise a few rogue members of a house of Parliament as that interlocutor.

In defiance of the British constitution, the rulings of and legal precedents cited by the leader of that rogue faction and the referendum result.

There is never a good time for the EU to be facing that sort of decision. However this seems a particularly bad one.

There is the situation in Venezuela.

There both houses of the Congress ruled that the office of President was vacant. After the failure to hold an election follow the expiry of the incumbent's term. In line with their constitution Congress appointed Juan Guaido as the interim President.

As a result the EU now recognises Guaido as the interlocutor of the Venezuelan people. On behalf of Congress.

Then there is Syria. The EU long ago recognised the self-styled; "Syrian Opposition" of the interlocutor of the Syrian people rather than the Syrian government. A decision which is now looking unwise.

So if a rogue faction of the British Parliament do attempt to seek recognition from the EU over Brexit both Venezuela and Syria situations are likely to get bumpy.

I'm sure the British public are all extremely proud of the illustrious company their idiot MP's have put them in.

18:25 on 25/3/19 (UK date).

Brexit Has Not Been Delayed.

I can't believe I am having to correct the news on this.

On Thursday (21/3/19) the British Prime Minister Theresa May, on behalf of the British government, attended the European Union (EU) Council (EUCO) summit. There she made a request for an extension to the Brexit process.

The EU leaders rejected that request. In its place they made a counter-offer, which very much seems to be an attempt to overthrow the British government.

The fact that the EU have made a counter-offer does not, in any way, change the date of Brexit. That continues to be March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).

I can see how many British Remoaner MP's might have got confused about this. After all that has been how British law has been formed for the past 40 years.

An EU official makes a declaration. Then pronouncement then becomes law. Without British MP's being involved in any way.

For literally sitting on their arses doing nothing British MP's are paid £77,000 a year. Understandably they are very opposed to that situation changing.

On this issue of Brexit though the process is different.

In order to alter the date of Brexit a Statutory Instrument, essentially a law, will need to pass both Houses of Parliament. In order to change the Brexit date of the EU Withdrawal Act 2017.

Introducing such a Statutory Instrument may well constitute an act of treason. In order to become law the Statutory Instrument will have to be signed by the Queen. That will require her to overrule the counsel of her subjects, as expressed through the 2016 referendum.

For me Brexit has long ago stopped being about whether Britain is a member of the EU or not.

It is now a question of whether Britain can still call itself a democracy. Or whether it has now become a dictatorship ruled by a small cabal of 149 people.

The only way in which introducing the Statutory Instrument will not constitute treason is if MP's vote to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement. In order to trigger an extension to allow the implementation the Withdrawal Agreement.

Until that happens the date of Brexit remains unchanged at March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).

I'm very surprised that BBC News, as a public service broadcaster, in particular is not making this clearer to people.

As things stand if you're planning to travel to or from the EU on March 30th 2019 (30/3/19) thinking Brexit has been delayed.

Well, you're going to be in for a nasty surprise.

14:43 on 23/3/19 (UK date).

The EU: Victory's Dentist.

Britain is continuing the struggle with it's exit from the European Union (EU). The famous Brexit.

The British people are not stupid. They can see that the problem is exclusively the fault of Britain's Parliament.

The British Prime Minister Theresa May, on behalf of the British government, reached a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU back in November 2018.

The British government put this Withdrawal Agreement to Parliament in January 2019. Parliament rejected it.

The British government again put this Withdrawal Agreement to Parliament in March 2019. Parliament rejected it.

The only reason why Parliament keeps doing this is that MP's want to remain in the EU.

Leaving would force them to actually do a days work, for the first time in about 40 years. In the process exposing to voters just how utterly incompetent many of their elected representatives actually are.

Shamefully Parliament is going to continue behaving like this until Britain actually leaves the EU.

The date Britain will leave the EU has long been set in law. A week from today, March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).

Failure to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement before that date will lead a turbulent period. A No Deal scenario

Parliament will find itself recalled in emergency session. First to pass the Withdrawal Agreement. Then to pass the technical, supporting legislation needed to implement the Withdrawal Agreement.

To avoid this Prime Minister May, on behalf of the British government, sought an extension from the EU.

That would see the date of Brexit moved from March 29th (29/3/19) to the end of June 2019. On condition that Parliament adopted the Withdrawal Agreement prior to March 29th.

The EU itself has now spectacularly screwed up that request.

They have granted an extension until April 12th (12/4/19). On condition that Parliament adopts the Withdrawal Agreement prior to that date.

If Parliament fails to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement by April 12th (12/4/19) the EU has granted a further extension until May 22nd (22/5/19). A move clearly designed to encourage Parliament to once again reject the Withdrawal Agreement.

This scheme has the fingerprints of EU Council (EUCO) President Donald Tusk all over it.

Donald Tusk encapsulates everything that is wrong with the EU.

In 2010 Tusk was the Prime Minister of Poland. At a time when the nation was deciding whether to join the EU. Something which met with significant opposition amongst Tusk's own party.

Then in April 2010 a plane carrying Polish President, Lech Kaczynski crashed. Also killed in this crash were the majority of Tusk's party who opposed joining the EU.

With his opponents dead then Prime Minister Tusk was able to bring Poland into the EU. Then rise within the EU's ranks to become it's council President.

As such there has been a persistent rumour that Donald Tusk is so committed to the EU project and his own quest for power he murdered 96 of his own people.

By dragging out Brexit until May 22nd (22/5/19) Tusk is hoping that it will be cancelled all together. This seems a faint hope.

Prime Minister May, on behalf of the British government, has made clear that it will not be calling off Brexit.

Last Thursday (14/3/19) Parliament voted on two amendments.

One on calling a second referendum on Brexit. The other on allowing Parliament to take decision making on Brexit out of the hands of the British government.

Both of these amendments were defeated.

On Monday (18/3/19) the Speaker of Parliament, John Bercow, ruled that defeated motions and amendments cannot be reintroduced with the same Parliamentary session.

There is some debate whether that means between recesses. Such as the Easter recess which begins April 4th (4/4/19) and ends April 23rd (23/4/19). Or whether it means in the five year life of the Parliament. Which, in this case, ends in the spring of 2022.

Either way those defeated motions on a second referendum or Parliament seizing control cannot be reintroduced until April 23rd (23/4/19). At the earliest.

As such Tusk's only real hope of blocking Brexit is bringing down the British government.

In December 2018 an attempt was made by the governing Conservative Party to bring down the government. It failed. As a result the Conservative Party cannot make another attempt until December 2019. At the earliest.

The opposition Labour Party could attempt to bring down the government. However that would trigger a general election, suspending Parliament well into June 2019.

Strictly speaking EUCO President Tusk does not get a vote in EU Council decisions.

So it is interesting how he's been able to impose his will on the 27(+1) leaders of the EU.

Like most con tricks the main element has been time pressure.

Telling EU leaders that they had to make a decision before today's (22/3/19) second day of the summit. Dealing with the EU's relationship with China.

Further telling them they had to make a decision before midnight (CET). To avoid clashing with the memorial to the Christchurch shootings.

There has also been a large element of intimidation.

Two day's before the summit, on March 20th (20/3/19), Hungary's governing Fidesz Party was suspended from the European People's Party. A powerful grouping within the European Parliament.

This follows the decision by the European Parliament in September 2018 to suspend Hungary's voting rights. It can be seen as a precursor to the EUCO implementing that decision, ultimately leading to Hungary being expelled from the EU.

The Hungary decision serves to intimidate the entire Visegrad Group of four EU member states. Made up of Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Tusk's native Poland.

Three nations that will be particularly affected by a No Deal Brexit are the Republic of Ireland, France and the Netherlands.

The Republic of Ireland is rather sanguine about this. After all they are used to dealing with Britain's worst excesses and have a long history or treating border rules more as a suggestion than a requirement.

The Netherlands however have recently gone through a political shock of their own. In the wake of Monday's (18/3/19) Utrecht terror attack the far-right, anti-EU Forum for Democracy Party came second in Wednesday's (20/3/19) Senate elections.

As a result Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has got be paranoid any economic shock caused by Brexit could bring down his government.

I don't think I need to remind anyone how unpopular French President Emmanuel Macron is.

France has been burning in protest against him since November 2018. This weekend France is being forced to deployed armed troops to the streets. To protect Macron from what is now seriously starting to look like a dictator toppling revolution.

As a result President Macron has got to be worried that any short term economic shock caused by Brexit will be what finally causes him to fall.

So both the Netherlands and France have agreed to this delay to buy time for their own No Deal planning. In doing that they seem to have lost sight of the bigger picture.

The fact that two EU nations have blinked in the face of a No Deal Brexit will see Hard Brexiteers double down on their opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement. Making it more likely the extension will be until May 22nd (22/5/19) rather than April 12th (12/4/19).

If EUCO President Tusk does succeed in stopping Britain from leaving you have to seriously worry about the future of the EU.

As I've said Hungary seems to be on the path to being expelled from the EU.

Tusk is deeply unpopular in his native Poland. To the point his close friend and political ally Pawel Adamowicz, Mayor of Gdansk was killed back in January 2019. A killing which has been blamed on Poland's government.

Even those accusations seem to speed up the possibility of Poland being expelled from the EU.

There are already anti-EU parties in power in Greece and Italy. They're surging across the EU, particularly in Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden. As I've said France is currently in flames in protest against pro-EU President Macron.

So in his quest to stand as Emperor EUCO President Tusk may well be the one who causes the Empire to crumble beneath his feet.

What's the old saying about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

12:40 on 22/3/19 (UK date).

Edited at around 15:10 on 22/3/19 (UK date) to add;

That of course is all just the EU's counter-offer. If it does not meet Britain's requirements Britain is under absolutely no obligation to take the EU up on the offer.

The idea of a May 22nd (22/5/19) extension can be dismissed out of hand.

It's an attempt by an EU body to overthrow a lawfully and democratically elected foreign government. Not only that the official responsible has no authority within that EU body.

Now they've been given time to think I'd be very surprised if any EU leader would be prepared to acknowledge Tusk even made the suggestion. Let alone that it was included in any formal offer.

If all those MP's who rejected the Withdrawal Agreement last week apologise to Prime Minister May Parliament may be given a vote this coming week. On adopting the Withdrawal Agreement as the sole way of taking up the offer of an extension until April 12th (12/4/19).

Otherwise it's Brexit on March 29th (29/3/19) as scheduled.

France and the Netherlands failure to prepare in time is their problem. Not Britain's.

Someone Hit Fast Forward.

I am still trying to address the issue of the Military Tribunals needed to process ISIL members captured by the SDF.

Unfortunately Britain is still in the grips of its Brexit saga. With emergency addresses to the nation and sudden news flashes this making for a very unstable working environment.

The short version though is that the international coalition, Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) will act as the convening authority. The legal entity under which the tribunals will be held.

They are to take the form of Special Court Martials with the power to impose the death penalty. Under military exigency rules.

The exigency coming from the unusual circumstances where CJTFOIR operate within Syria without permission of the Syrian government. Yet are not there to fight the Syrian government.

That shorthand should be perfectly understood by anyone who has served with NATO forces. Far from being uncharted territory there is actually a users manual to deal with exactly this type of situation.

If that shorthand doesn't immediately make sense to you. Well, that should explain to you why it's going to take me a little while to explain it in more detail.

Once you've got through the mechanics of how to structure the tribunals you've then got the issue of what to do with the children of captured ISIL members.

A problem we have here is that one of the crimes ISIL stand accused of is over the use of child soldiers. Those under the age of 15 years.

This means that the tribunals could well find themselves trying children. Between the common age of criminal responsibility of around 10 years and the age of adulthood, 15 years.

If you find that shocking, imagine how it feels to have to kill a 12 year old soldier.

For that small group of youths it almost goes without saying that their punishments will be served in their native countries. As always the youth justice system is focused far more on rehabilitation that punishment and deterrent.

Then there is the issue of what to do with those beneath the age of criminal responsibility who have not committed any specific act of violence. Again this is far from uncharted territory.

One sign that western politics has slipped into unreality was the response to US President Trump border separation policy. This saw people demand to know; "What sort of society separates parents from their children?!"

The answer to that is pretty much every civilised society, on a daily basis.

I would expect that this group are treated in the exact same way to any other children whose parents can't care for them. Due to the fact they are either awaiting trial or are serving a sentence having been convicted.

That is to say they are taken into the care of their native government/state.

Normally what happens then is the state looks to see if there are any relatives who would make a suitable guardian for the child. If one can be found then the child is put into the care of that guardian.

This is where the children of ISIL members pose a particular problem. Although there may be a variety of reasons the parents of ISIL members have not done a good job of protecting children under their care from extremist influences.

While I don't want to prejudice any cases by getting into specifics I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting putting more children under the care of Shamima Begum's family. There it's more of a question of being concerned with any children who are already under the care of that particular family.

As with most things involved in fighting ISIL Russia is already well ahead of the CJTFOIR nations on this issue. They have already repatriated hundreds of the children of ISIL members. What Russia has tended to do is place those children under the guardianship of grandparents and other close relatives.

Here though Russia has something of an advantage. The overwhelming majority of families it's dealing with come from regions such as Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan etc.

These are all Muslim majority societies. There being Muslim is not some exotic novelty, it is the norm. These societies have also recently gone through violent Islamist insurgencies. As a result they are very good at identifying what is and what isn't extremist beliefs and making sure they're not given traction within society.

US and European societies don't have this depth of understanding of Islam. Therefore lack this, almost muscle memory, needed to identify and isolate extremists.

For example the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain can trace their ideological roots back to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Even if they're British born and only converted in adulthood. I've heard many native Arabic speakers complaining about the Urdu speaking Mosques.

Many Pakistan and Bangladeshi Muslim, particularly the ones who migrated to Britain practice a form of Deobandi Islam. This is very similar to the extreme of Wahabbist Islam which Saudi Arabia is famous for.

To the point that many Deobandis describe themselves as Wahabbists because it's easier than explaining the differences to people who have to ask.

So what is considered mainstream, moderate Islam in Britain is actually considered extreme, headbanging Islam in much of the Muslim world.

A prime example of this would be the child sexual exploitation gangs in the British cities of Rotherham and Rochdale.

Local police and Labour Party politicians were so enamoured by this exotic mystery known as Islam they thought it would be racist to stop adult men raping and selling little girls.

When the scandal broke the reaction from much of the Muslim world, including places like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), was much the same as the reaction up and down Britain; "What. The. Actual. F*ck?!" 

These 1001 Arabian Nights fantasies progressives and liberals harbour about Muslims have been called into sharp focus by the recent mass shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand.

In response to those shootings New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern seems to have become fixated on two things.

It is worth pointing out that fixating on things at the expense of everything else is a common symptom of traumatic stress. If it's not taken in hand it can rapidly develop into traumatic stress disorder.

The first thing Prime Minister Ardern has become fixated on is banning guns. She has become particularly fixated on banning them faster than Australia banned guns.

In 2014 Australia introduced new immigration which saw foreign criminals deported. In the vast majority of cases this means New Zealanders. An issue which clearly still rankles, given Prime Minister Ardern's February 22nd (22/2/19) comments.

The other thing that Prime Minister Ardern seems to have fixated on are the exotic mourning rituals that this strange group known as the Muslims have brought with them from outer space.

One important element of mourning to Muslims is that burial must happen quickly. I think the rule is at or before the second sunrise after death.

At the time of the Prophet this was just sensible advice. In a hot, desert country like modern day Saudi Arabia after about 24 hours a decomposing corpse is going to start posing a very serious health hazard to the living.

In economically developed nations with advanced refrigeration though you tend to find that Muslims are prepared to be a bit more philosophical about that rule. Although after the death of a loved one most people just want to get the funeral over and done with as soon as possible.

Another important element of mourning to Muslims is the belief that the human body continues to feel pain after death. I can't remember the exact quote but I think it's along the lines of breaking the bone of a dead person is the same as breaking the bone of a living person.

At the time of the Prophet, when it was much harder to confirm death, this was very sensible advice. After all you wouldn't want to snap the neck of someone who was only sleeping.

Again this fear of being wrongly dismissed as dead is a common human rather than particularly Muslim fear.

During the Victorian era Cholera epidemics were common. This led to many designs for so-called; "Safety Coffins" to be patented.

The most common involving a bell standing above the grave which could be rung by the person in the coffin. If they weren't dead after all.

This tradition gave rise to a number of phrases which are still in common usage today. Such as; "Saved by the Bell," "Dead Ringer" and; "Graveyard Shift."

Irish Catholics traditionally leave the deceased laying in an open coffin for a week. Just in case they get up again.

Again though you tend to find that Muslims are prepared to be a bit more philosophical about the notion that the body feels pain after death. Particularly Muslim Doctors who know that they've got a lot better at making sure someone is actually dead.

This idea that the body continues to feel pain after death has been a particular problem following the Christchurch shootings.

As it does in many nations New Zealand law requires that autopsies are performed in all cases of sudden or suspicious death. That involves breaking the bones of the dead, something which Muslims are not keen on.

If a suspicious or sudden death leads to a criminal prosecution the accused has an automatic right to have the results of the autopsy reviewed by an expert of their choosing. They also have an automatic right to have a second autopsy performed by an expert of their choosing.

Prime Minister Ardern's fixation on Muslim mourning rituals is starting to cause serious problems for New Zealand's legal system.

In the rush to get the initial autopsies and therefore funerals done as quickly I think every pathologist in New Zealand has been called in to work on the case. This means that it's going to be extremely difficult to find an independent expert to represent the defence.

It seems likely they're going to have to ask for help from Prime Minister Ardern's hated Australia.

Signed, not read.

18:35 on 21/3/19 (UK date).

Edited at around 19:45 on 21/3/19 (UK date) to tidy up & add;

To get around the problem of second autopsies the suspect has only been charged with one count of murder. The other 49 are likely to follow after the funerals.

On the one charged count the suspect has the right for an expert of their choosing to review the results of the initial autopsy. They also have the right to have a second autopsy performed.

Something which can delay the funeral by months if not years. Particularly if the suspect is not only guilty but also extremely spiteful.

If a funeral has already taken place the suspect still has the right for an expert of their choosing to review the results of the initial autopsy. They also have a right to have a second autopsy performed.

However before that they have to convince a Judge there is a legitimate reason to exhume the body. Based on the review of the initial autopsy.

I strongly suspect it will be hard to find such a legitimate reason in this case. After all there seems to be little dispute over the cause of death.

In waiting to charge the other 49 counts authorities in New Zealand are not breaking the law.

So I only hinted at this over the weekend. Not in protest but as a way to deter the virtue signallers from demanding to know why he'd only been charged with the one count.

Authorities in New Zealand are though significantly testing the limits of the law. Therefore there is only so long this can go on for.

In part that's just a matter of principle. The justice system is a mechanism to find truth. Whilst protecting both the victims of crime and those accused of crime.

It is particularly important to protect the rights of unpopular people who are accused of crime. Otherwise we wouldn't waste all that money. Instead we'd just assume the n*gger is guilty, because all n*ggers are guilty and let someone hang him from a tree.

In cases like this it is not only important that justice is done. It is important that justice is seen to be done to the extent that is impossible to argue that it hasn't. Otherwise it just feeds into the conspiracy theories of those who might be inspired to carry out copycat attacks.

In America in the case of Dylann Roof justice was clearly not done. In the case of James Fields justice clearly was not done.

Americans who denied those individuals a fair trial apparently still can't understand why the threat continues to rise. I'm almost convinced they get some perverse pleasure from situations such as this.

Prime Minister Ardern's fixation with the funerals and Muslim mourning rituals seems to have become a national obsession amongst her supporters.

To the point hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have been threatening to descend on Mosques for the upcoming Friday prayers.

As if New Zealand's tiny Muslim community would be helped by having thousands of strangers trampling through their private grief.

So deter this threat New Zealand will be marking the start of Friday prayers by playing the Muslim call to prayer on all TV and radio stations. In a national moment of remembrance.

To those who are convinced they must defend themselves against the Muslim invaders that is going to be a klaxon call to arms.

If that was not bad enough the one person the suspect is formally accused of murdering isn't actually dead.

In order to arrest someone for murder, let alone charge them with the crime you need to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion the victim is actually dead. In this case that reasonable suspicion very clearly does not exist.

The fact that one of the claimed victims is not dead at all is going to fuel conspiracy theories about crisis actors and the entire thing being staged. They should be easy to deny.

What's going to be harder to deny is the fact that, legally speaking, this case is just a kidnapping now.

Prime Minister Ardern has though got her proposed gun ban through. Beating the record set by Australia.

Having spectacularly failed at the basics though it would probably have been better to focus on a visit to occupational health.

Perhaps take another period of leave.

20:30 on 21/3/19 (UK date).

An Abomination Beyond Comprehension (Draft).

Sub-title; "Operation Featherweight: Month 57, Week 3, Day 1"

In February 2019 the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) liberated the Hajin Pocket. This was the last holdout of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In the SDF controlled area of northern Syria designated "Shangri-La."

The remnants of ISIL within Shangri-La were forced into a tiny patch of scrubland between the towns of Baghouz Fawqani and Marashidah. This area has been designated; "Camp Futility."

Since mid-February the SDF have been trying to gently ease the ISIL fighters in Camp Futility into surrender. A process that has been slowed by the fact that ISIL hold a significant number of civilian hostages which they have been using as human shields.

Today (19/3/19) it is being reported that the SDF have taken control of Camp Futility. Whatever ISIL fighters which remain are holding out right on the banks of the Euphrates River. If they retreat any further they will literally fall into the water.

I currently feel more like an historian of the war in Syria. Rather than an active participant. So here I'm not going to get sucked into the detail of the SDF's ongoing operation.

Instead I am going to address the issue of the large numbers of ISIL prisoners the SDF have taken during the liberation of the Hajin Pocket. This is an issue that the British media have highlighted globally through the specific case of Shamima Begum.

In order to do that I first have to address the apparently inability of many to comprehend the scale and severity of the crimes of which ISIL stand accused.

Britain continues to find itself in the saga of Brexit. Britain's exit from the European Union (EU).

An opponent of Brexit, or; "Remoaner" who has recently risen to prominence is the Member of Parliament (MP) Anna Soubry. She recently quit the Conservative government in protest over Brexit. In order to join the "Independent Group". A loose grouping of MP's opposed to Brexit.

In what is starting to resemble a midlife crisis Anna Soubry has also become a very vocal supporter of Shamima Begum. Calling for her to be allowed to escape any form of justice by being granted asylum in the UK.

On January 7th 2019 (7/1/19) Anna Soubry was giving a live TV interview, expressing her opposition to Brexit. On what is essentially a public street outside of the Parliament building.

During this interview a group of protesters started melodically chanting; "Soubry is a Nazi!" Very much in the style of a football crowd.

Anyone with experience of football crowds would have found this highly amusing. Rather than in any way violent or intimidating.

Anna Soubry however was appalled by the violent attack she'd been subjected to. Other MP's joined her call and demanded the police provide them with increased protection from this violence and intimidation.

One man, James Goddard, has even been prosecuted by police over the incident. He actually appeared in Court today where he sensibly plead not guilty, citing the defence of fair comment.

If melodically chanting a slogan which does not even contain foul or abusive language is how Britain's politicians, police and Courts define "violence" then war will absolutely blow their minds.

War is an complete abomination. An abomination to all that humans hold dear. It is an environment where you are not just allowed to kill other human beings. You are actively encouraged to do so.

That killing is not merely a matter of clicking a button on a keyboard and watching a bomb fall to it's target on a TV screen. It is not even a matter of staring through the sights of a gun as you fire bullets at someone a few metres/yards away.

In war you may be called upon to kill by smashing a bayonet or knife through another person's skull. You may even be called upon to beat someone to death with your bare hands.

Unless you have thrown a punch or taken a punch in anger it is hard to understand how much that asks of you.

To keep going when the other person is begging for mercy. Or when they have lost consciousness. To keep going even when the tiny bones in your own hands have been broken.

One of the things which has really fuelled public anger at Shamima Begum is a claim she made that the May 22nd 2017 (22/5/17) Manchester Arena bombing was justified. This is where 22 civilians were blown up by a suicide bomber as they gathered for a pop concert.

I covered the Manchester Arena bombing extensively at the time.

In part that was because it was thing that everybody was talking about globally. It was also because it happened in my native Britain. Meaning I was equipped with the local knowledge to explain it to people around the globe.

The fact of the matter though is that the Manchester Arena bombing was a minor incident.

It occurred as the battle to liberate the Iraqi city of Mosul thundered on. Particularly at that stage the Battle for Mosul saw ISIL make widespread use of a common tactic of theirs. Suicide Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (SVBIED's).

ISIL would drive these large, Oklahoma City sized, truck bombs at speed towards the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) lines within the city. They would then detonate them in packed city streets surrounded by civilian homes.

At that time of the Manchester Arena bombing ISIL were doing this in Mosul several times a day. Civilians were being killed in their hundreds.

The truly shocking fact is that in war ISIL's use of these SVBIED's is considered a legitimate, if somewhat reckless, military tactic. As are the airstrikes used to destroy the SVBIED's before they reached their targets.

Just this past weekend we've seen the mass shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand. In which 50 people were killed in two Mosques.

Again I stand by my decision to give almost three days of coverage to that one incident. Nor do I seek to minimise it. However while covering it I did feel a little bit guilty about things in Syria I was being forced to ignore.

As they've been eased out of Camp Futility ISIL have taken to releasing large groups of their civilian hostages.

Amid those groups of civilians one, sometimes more, ISIL fighters have been hidden themselves wearing a Suicide Vest (S-Vest). When the group arrives at the SDF lines the suicide bomber sets off their bomb.

Due to covering events in New Zealand I don't know the exact number of these attacks or their exact death toll.

However I do know that on Friday (15/3/19) alone there were at least three attacks. There have been reports of them happening on an hourly basis.

Despite its horrors there are people who treat war as their chosen profession. They train for it day in and day out. Sometimes they're forced to do it for real.

Even amongst these people there are still some acts considered so atrocious and so appalling that they must be banned. These forbidden acts are the offences created under the so-called; "Laws of War."

The primary legal instruments which make up the Laws of War are the Geneva Conventions. They are supplemented by various other pieces of law which deal with specific issues in detail.

For example the use of Chemical and Biological weapons in war is covered by the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Or 1925 Geneva Protocol for short.

In terms of the use of Biological Weapons the 1925 Geneva Protocol has been superseded by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. In terms of Chemical Weapons the 1925 Geneva Protocol has been superseded by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.

As within civilian law the implementation of the Laws of War is governed and guided by the precedent of past decisions and relevant case law.

In the wake of the shootings in New Zealand a meme was circulated on social media. It showed the Prophet Muhammad's instructions to soldiers. Islam's code of ethical war.

Like the Catholic Church's encyclicals on the concept of; "A Just War" the Prophet's code of ethical war has no specific legal standing. However looking at the two you can see how many of the Prophet's prohibitions have become offences under the Geneva Conventions.

Things such as avoiding wanton destruction. Not attacking sites with protected status, such as places of worship and hospitals. Not killing protected classes of people, such as civilians, medical staff and prisoners.

So when I say that the World gathered to write the Laws of War I mean the World gathered to write them. Muslims were most certainly part of the process. Arabic is one of the just six official languages of the United Nations (UN).

Above and beyond the Laws of War you have a class of actions so appalling and so serious they are considered crimes against all of humanity.

The first use of the term; "Crimes Against Humanity" came in Second Hague Convention of 1899. A precursor to the Geneva Conventions. The first attempt to codify Crimes Against Humanity came in the 1945 Nuremberg Principles and associated Nuremberg Code.

Currently the primary legal instrument defining these Crimes Against Humanity is the 1998 Rome Statute. Specifically Article 7 which lists the 11 specific offences.

Unlike the Laws of War the 1998 Rome Statute applies both in times of war and in times of peace.

The most widely known Crime Against Humanity is that of; "Extermination." Commonly referred to as; "Genocide."

Probably the most famous example of genocide is the Nazi Holocaust. During which 11 million civilians were exterminated, including 6 million Jews.

It was this which prompted the World to first attempt to pass a specific law forbidding it. The Nuremberg Principles.

It also prompted the creation of Holocaust Memorial Day on January 27th each year. This gathers politicians the World over to together to mumble the phrase; "Never Again."

To me though it is another genocide which helps you truly understand the offence of; "Extermination."

That is 1975 to 1979 genocide committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Estimates of the number killed there range from between 1.7 million  and 3 million people. Roughly 25% of Cambodia's population at the time.

Most of those killed during the Khmer Rouge's genocide were buried in mass graves in rural fields. Amongst survivors of the genocide these became known as; "The Killing Fields."

Of those roughly 20,000 mass grave sites many have since been excavated and memorials and museums  built in their place. As a memorial and tribute to the dead.

Some, such as Wat Champuk Ka'Ek, feature vast rooms. Stacked from floor to ceiling with human bones and human skulls. The unidentified remains recovered from the Killing Fields.

It is only when you see one of those rooms, finding yourself totally consumed by death that you start to understand the meaning of the term; "Genocide."

It is only then that you understand that; "Never Again" is not just some slogan you mumble your way through once a year.

It too has meaning. It must be backed by action.

At 19:10 on 19/3/19 (UK date) I'm afraid I'm going to have to pause there.

Edited at around 16:00 on 18/4/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

Another Crime Against Humanity which is particularly relevant to ISIL is that of slavery. Both traditional and sexual.

On February 1st 2019 (1/2/19) the SDF captured a German ISIL member, Martin Lemke, along with his wife. At the time of their capture the couple had in their possession a young Yezidi woman whom they were keeping as a slave.

Again take a moment to think about what that truly means.

At some point these young newlyweds had gone to an out-of-town retail park. However rather than picking up a washing machine or a used car they brought another human being. A young woman to be raped by the husband and used by the wife to do chores.

It is like a scene from the TV show; "A Handmaid's Tale." For many that is just a TV show but for some that has been real life under ISIL. A point I think the program makers have tried to convey to their audience.

Occasionally civilised societies experience case similar to ISIL's behaviour. For example the 2013 Ariel Castro case in Cleveland, Ohio, US. There Ariel Castro had kidnapped three young woman and kept them prisoner as sexual slaves.

When the Ariel Castro case was uncovered the reaction of American society, along with the wider World, was one of shock and disgust. The American apparatus of state, the criminal justice system, did not hesitate to swiftly and severely punish these clear crimes.

Eventually Ariel Castro was sentenced to a whole life term in prison plus another 1,000 years. That meant he would spend the rest of his natural life in prison. Then remain in prison for another milena after his death. A month after being sentenced he killed himself.

Within the society ISIL created crimes such as Ariel Castro's were not hidden away or severely punished when uncovered. They were conducted in the open and considered a normal part of society.

Currently there is a case going through the Courts in Germany. Involving a 27 year old female ISIL member Germany allowed to return from Syria.

The allegation against "Jennifer W" is that she purchased a Yezidi woman and her 5 year old daughter as domestic slaves. Jennifer W kept the 5 year old child chained up in the garden of her home like a dog. Denied food, water or shelter in the blazing desert heat the child died of heat exhaustion.

This is not something ISIL's own police investigated or attempted to prosecute. In fact Jennifer W was a member of ISIL's al-Khansaa Brigade morality police.

Slavery and particularly sexual slavery are not just a normal, everyday part of the society ISIL created. They are something that is condoned and actively encouraged by that society.

ISIL even went so far as publishing and distributing manuals on how to keep even pre-pubescent children as sex slaves. Rather like how a government in a normal society would publish a guide telling you how to pay your taxes or register to vote.

Such is the scale and horror of ISIL's crimes that I've long since been unable to think about them in their entirety.

Instead I've only been able to see the war as a series of small, technical problems or puzzles. Each small puzzle must be solved in order to the next one.

It is only through solving this series of technical problems that ISIL can be defeated and the complete horror of the group can be brought to an end.

One of the main reasons its taken me so long to address this issue is that doing so forces me to look at the entire cliff-face as it were.

Something which even I find rapidly becomes completely overwhelming.

16:15 on 18/4/19 (UK date).

Nazis: Now Available in Muslim.

On Friday March 15th (15/3/19) mass shootings occurred at two Mosques within the city of Christchurch in New Zealand.

These appear to have been motivated by a Nazi, Neo-Nazi or White Supremacist ideology.

They have prompted calls for the White, Christian community to condemn the killings.

In the same way that some in the White, Christian community demand that the entire Muslim community condemn atrocities carried out in the name of Islam.

Doing so has presented absolutely no problem for the vast majority of people. Not only are Nazis and Islamists two sides of the same coin there is actually a long history of cooperation and collusion between Nazis and Islamists.

You may remember that on August 11th 2017 (11/8/17) a small group of Nazis and Neo-Nazis held a protest in town of Charlottesville in the US state of Virginia. They held a torch-lit march around a park and beyond that not much happened.

The following day (12/8/17) city and state officials from the Democrat Party called for counter-protesters to gather in Charlottesville. Having called for this counter-protest those Democrat city & state officials singularly failed to prepare for it. As detailed in the Heaphy report into the incident.

As you would predict the Democrats incitement coupled with their failure to keep order led to violence. During which a woman, Heather Heyer was killed by a speeding car. A speeding car being driven down a pedestrianised street which the Democrats had specially opened for the day.

In response to the death Democrats and their supporters demanded the incident be declared an act of terror. They went on to demand that Republican President Donald Trump condemn the; "White Terror!" 

The original "White Terror" was a policy of the leader of Nazi, Fascist Spain, Francisco Franco.

Rather than being racially motivated this White Terror policy was used to torture and kill Franco's political opponents. It's name was intended as a riposte to the; "Red Terror" carried out by Communist forces.

The White Terror was perpetrated by Franco's shock troops, The Fuerzas Regulares Indígenas/Indigenous Regular Forces. Sometimes known simply as; "Regulares."

The Regulares were commanded by General Mohamed Meziane. A black Moroccan Muslim.

On August 17th 2017 (17/8/17), days after the events in Charlottesville, there was an Islamist terror attack in Las Ramblas. In the Spanish Catalan city of Barcelona.

Amongst fans of the Spanish Civil War Las Ramblas is famous for its role in the November 1936 funeral of Buenaventura Durruti. Essentially the founder of the Anti-Fascist Action (AntiFa) movement.

Not that any of the US Democrat thugs currently appropriating the AntiFa name seem to have ever heard of Buenaventura Durruti. 

Franco's Spain was part of the Axis of Powers including the Italy of Benito Mussolini and the Germany of Adolf Hitler.

It was the Nazi German airforce which was key in securing Franco's victory in the Spanish Civil War. Including the infamous April 1937 bombing of the Basque city of Guernica.

While General Meziane was conducting the White Terror on Franco's behalf Hitler and Mussolini were forming an alliance with Amin al-Husseini. The Muslim Mufti of what was then British Mandated Palestine.

Hitler and Mussolini supported al-Husseini in launching the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt in Palestine. Unlike the Spanish Civil War which took place at the same time al-Hussenini's Arab Revolt failed. Forcing him to flee first to Jordan and then to Iraq.

In 1941 al-Husseini travelled to Mussolini's Italy. From there he worked closely with Hitler's Germany to draw up the Declaration of German-Arab Cooperation. The saw the Axis Powers agree to work with al-Husseini to remove the existence of "Jewish elements" from Palestine.

The cooperation between Mufti al-Husseini and Hitler remains a deeply incendiary issue within the current Israel/Palestine conflict.

Zionist Jews like to claim that Mufti al-Husseini was one of the main architects of the Nazi Holocaust, the murder of 11 million people. As evidence they cite testimony given by senior Nazis, such as Dieter Wislicney, at the Nuremberg Military Tribunals.

To counter this Palestinians and their supporters try to claim that Hitler was in fact a Zionist. Citing as evidence the 1933 Transfer or Haavara Agreement between Nazi Germany and the Zionist Federation of Germany. This allowed some German Jews to travel to Palestine.

The Haavara Agreement is particularly popular with former UK, London Mayor Ken Livingstone. He normally brings it up just before an election. When his Labour Party are trying to mobilise their Muslim supporters to vote.

I can't help but note that the Christchurch shootings occurred as Israel was bombing Gaza. In response to two long range missiles being fired on Tel Aviv. Apparently without the knowledge nor consent of any of the recognised militant groups in Gaza.

Mufti al-Husseini was far from the only Muslim leader to ally themselves with Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers. Led by Sefqet Verlaci a group of Albanian Muslims formed the National Front (Balli Kombetar) to rule on behalf of the Axis Powers.

The area the Axis powers gave Balli Kombetar control over contained not just modern day Albania. It was an area known as; "Greater Albania." Made up of Albania along with parts of Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and even parts of Greece.

At the 2018 World Cup there was a huge controversy when several Swiss players, including Xherdan Shaqiri made an Eagle gesture in a game against Serbia. People who recognise it know this Eagle gesture is the Albanian Muslim version of a Nazi salute.

Within in the Soviet Union, and in modern Russia, the Second World War is known as; "The Great Patriotic War." In which the evil ideology of Nazism was defeated by the heroic ideology of Communism.

Due to this narrative within nations which went onto be occupied by the Soviet Union Nazism is very much seen as the noble ideology of the resistance.

In former East German cities such as Chemnitz identifying yourself as a Nazi is about the most subversive and rebellious thing it is possible to do.

In the 1980's the NATO nations led by the US found these eastern European Nazis to be extremely useful. Particularly Albania's Muslim Nazis. They shipped them off to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets alongside this fellow you may have heard of. Osama bin Laden.

In 1999 then US President Bill Clinton also found Albania's Muslim Nazis to be extremely useful. With NATO support these Albanian Muslim Nazis, under the name; "Kosovo Liberation Army" attacked Serbia, seizing its southern Kosovo Province.

Neatly distracting voters from the impeachment proceedings facing then President Clinton.

Despite former President Clinton being out of office for 18 years no-one has been prepared to right the wrong of his 1999 Kosovo War. As a result Albania's Muslim Nazis continue to try and steal more territory. Notably in Macedonia.

To say that Albanian Muslim Nazis continued attempts to encroach on Serbia and its neighbours remains a hugely inflammatory issue is a massive understatement.

I can't help but note that the attack in Christchurch began with the playing of Serbian folk songs.

The European Union's (EU) response to the Albanian Muslim Nazi threat to Macedonia is simply to absorb Macedonia into the EU. After all everyone's always happy in the EU. Membership solves every problem.

Macedonia's membership of the EU has long been blocked by existing EU member Greece.

They object to Macedonia's use of the name; "Macedonia." Which implies a territorial claim over Greece's Macedonia Province. As a result the formal name of the nation of Macedonia has long been; "The Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia."

In June 2018 the EU forced FYR Macedonia to hold a referendum on changing its name to; "The Republic of North Macedonia." In order to end the dispute with Greece, allowing Macedonia to join the EU and supposedly end the threat of Albanian Muslim Nazis.

The people of FYR Macedonia not only rejected the proposed name change but also the idea of the referendum itself.

The only people who participated were the Albanian Muslim Nazi population. Which make up about 30% of the population. A hangover from the Nazi occupation by the Balli Kombetar.

In it's wonderfully democratic style the EU declared the referendum to be massive success. With the name change being supported by 96% of Macedonians. Despite not a single Macedonian appearing to vote.

This so-called; "Western Balkans" issue was what the December 2018 EU Summit was supposed to be all about. Before Britain hijacked it due to the its Parliament's complete failure to deal with the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

So I think I deserve a prize from the UK media.

In the space of a day and a half I've managed to take shootings at Mosques in New Zealand. And make it all about Brexit.

They must be so proud. 

At around 13:30 on 17/3/19 (UK date) I'll pick this up later.

Edited at around 16:10 on 17/3/19 (UK date) to add above & below;

Then there is Sweden. Another European nation whose alliance with Nazi Germany is often overlooked.

Between 1933 and 1939 Sweden was allied with Hitler and the Axis powers. Then in 1939 Sweden launched into the Winter War with Soviet allied Finland.

Sweden lost this war and then decided to declare itself neutral. In order to stop Soviet backed Finland pressing home its advantage. Despite this declaration of neutrality Sweden continued to lean more towards Hitler than towards Churchill.

Due to this late declaration of neutrality Sweden was never forced to into a reckoning over its Nazi ideology. In the same way that Germany and Italy were forced to do. Plus during the Cold War the NATO nations needed every ally the could get.

At the end of the Cold War Sweden's Nazis teamed up with Russian Islamists. In the Caucasus regions such as Chechnya and Ingushetia. In order to deliver the defeat to Russia they couldn't manage in the winter of 1939.

I can't help but note the main weapon used in the Christchurch shootings had the name; "Ebba Akerlund" scrawled on it. Ebba Akerlund was an 11 year old girl killed in the Islamist terror attack in Stockholm, Sweden in April 2017.

If Swedish Nazis were considering breaking of their longstanding alliance with anti-Russian Islamists they would have to view that as a threat.

Within Europe Nazism and Neo-Nazism have recently seen a significant resurgence. Events in Ukraine from 2014 onwards have given them a territorial foothold and a level of widespread legitimacy they've not enjoyed since the 1930's.

Not all people in Ukraine are Nazis. For example the embattled President Petro Poroshenko is not a Nazi. However many of the people currently in positions of power in Ukraine are most definitely Nazis.

They swear allegiance to Stepan Bandera. One of the leaders of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UIA). During the Second World War the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fought as part of the army of Nazi Germany. The 14th Grenadier Division of the Waffen SS to be precise.

So many of those holding positions of power in Ukraine are not Neo-Nazis or like Nazis. They are the actual, original Nazis.

Within Ukraine these Nazis have formed an alliance with a group of ethnically Turkish Muslims. Known locally as; "Tartars." One of their most high profile joint operations was the sabotage campaign which blacked out the Crimea region of Russia over the winter of 2015.

One indicator that Ukraine is started to break free from the grips of Nazism was the arrest and deportation in February 2018 of Mikheil Saakashvilli. Originally President of Georgia Saakashvilli was granted Ukrainian citizenship in 2015. By those who swear allegiance to Stepan Bandera.

As Georgia's President Saakashvilli is probably most famous for Georgia's remarkably ill-advised declaration of war against Russia during the 2008 Summer Olympics. It is perhaps appropriate then that his arrest and deportation from Ukraine came during the 2018 Winter Olympics.

I can't help but note the main weapon used in the Christchurch shootings had messages in the Georgian alphabet scrawled upon it.

I also can't help but note that weapon also had the name; "Alexandre Bissonnette" scrawled upon it. In January 2017 Alexandre Bissonnette carried out a gun attack at a Mosque in Quebec City, Canada. Killing six.

It's often said that Canada is to America as New Zealand is to Australia. Bascially the same, only calmer and more polite.

Canada has a very large ethnically Ukrainian population. Something that those who swear allegiance to Bandera have been able to exploit in their alliance with Muslim Tartars.

In late 2016 World renowned thief Bill Browder wanted Canada to impose sanctions on Russia. Under the guise of the Magnitsky Amendment. However the Canadian Foreign Minister Stephane Dion was hesitant to do so.

So Browder simply told Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that if he didn't comply Browder would bring down his government. By funding the ethnically Ukrainian population to vote against him.

Prime Minister Trudeau promptly complied. Dion was fired, replaced by Browder's choice Chrystia Freeland and the sanctions were imposed on Russia.

This all happened days before Alexandre Bissonnette's attack on a Quebec City Mosque.

Where others look at the Quebec City shooting or the Christchurch shooting and see a tragedy leaders like Prime Minister Trudeau become positively erect with excitement.

They see an opportunity to nurture their own cult of personality. Proving how caring and tolerant they are.
 
So Prime Minister Trudeau is likely to look at Bissonnette's name on that rifle and see a double bonus. An opportunity to reinforce Canada's support Ukrainian alliance between Nazis and Islamists.

In order to distract from the SNC-Lavlin scandal. Which looks set to bring down Prime Minister Trudeau and much of his government.

As for the rifle itself it is an Armalite Rifle model 15 (AR-15). A well known codename for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD). Particularly their International Brigade.

This was the same weapon used in the February 2018 Parkland shooting. That being the Parkland district of Florida, US. Not the Parkland district of Christchurch, New Zealand.

This particular AR-15 had been modified by its manufacturer. So the pistol grip was linked to the stock by a thin strip of plastic.

This is enough to say that it does not have a pistol grip. Something which prevents it being classed as an "Assault Weapon" under the terms of former US President Clinton's 1994 Assault Weapon ban.

Following the February 2018 Parkland shooting some people marched under the Islamist banner; "March For Our Lives." Demanding all AR-15's be banned and the immediate reinstatement of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban.

Or at least that's what they'd been told they were marching for.

To see a modern example of a Nazi/Islamist alliance you need to look no further than the current Turkish regime.

Turkey's President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan is leader of the Islamist Justice & Development Party (AKP). If you doubt Erdogan's Islamist credentials he will remind you that in 1999 he served 4 months of a 10 month prison sentence because of them.

Erdogan's AKP are kept in power by a coalition with the openly fascist National Movement Party (MHP). It is the MHP's paramilitary wing the Grey Wolves who currently occupy the Garvaghy Road and Afrin Canton areas of Syria. Under the guise of the United Turkmen Army (UTA).

Sometimes trying to pass themselves off as the "Syrian National Army" the UTA really want to see the AR-15's banned.

17:30 on 17/3/19 (UK date).

Edited again at around 19:15 on 18/3/19 (UK date) to add;

The Mosque attacked by Alexandre Bissonnette was in Quebec City. This is obviously in Quebec Province, the French speaking part of Canada.

Like New Zealand and Australia Canada is part of the UK Commonwealth Realm. Meaning the Head of State in all of the nations is British Queen Elizabeth II. However the French speaking areas of Canada are much closer culturally to France than Britain.

French President Emmanual Macron is very much in the Progressive Democrat mould. Alongside New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau.

Like Prime Minister Trudeau President Macron is in deep trouble at home. Through the Yellow Vest protests.

In his election campaign President Macron entirely falsely claimed that Russia had hacked his campaign emails. President Macron is now equally falsely blaming Russia and far-right, Neo-Nazis for being behind the Yellow Vest protests against him.

So like Prime Minister Trudeau you would think that President Macron would look at Alexandre Bissonnette's name on that rifle and see a double gift.

An opportunity to cultivate his cult of personality as a caring and tolerant leader. While smearing a distracting from his opponents and critics.

Today (18/3/19) there has been another terrorist shooting. This time in the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands. The Dutch city of The Hague is home of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Three people were killed and five wounded when a gunman opened fire on a tram/trolley bus.

The arrested suspect is a 37 year old Turkish man. The attack comes on Canakkale Day. A hugely significant day for Turkish nationalists, particularly Neo-Ottomans.

Canakkale Day marks the Ottoman Empire's victory in what is often referred to as the; "Gallipoli Campaign." This First World War battle is probably the most significant battle ever fought by the militaries of Australia and New Zealand.

Although the Ottoman Empire triumphed in the Canakkale/Gallipoli campaign a young officer, Mustfa Kamal Ataturk, realised that they would lose the war. So he drew up a plan for how to govern Turkey following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. As such Ataturk is widely, and rightly considered the founder of modern Turkey.

The Utrecht suspect is a Turkish Muslim. He fought against Russia in Chechnya as part of the Swedish network I mentioned above. The fact that members of this Swedish network are allowed to walk free, having not been punished poses a clear security threat to the EU. There are a lot of trained foot soliders looking for a new General.

Of the EU nations the Netherlands is probably the most opposed to the alliance between Nazis and ethnically Turkish Muslims in Ukraine.

For example conducting the investigation into the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 the Netherlands refused to blame it on Russia. For the simple reason that isn't any evidence of Russia being responsible. Despite the propaganda from Progressive Democrats.

The Netherlands also tried to block an association agreement between the EU and Ukraine. By holding a referendum in which voters rejected the idea. In its wonderfully democratic way the EU then just ignored the referendum result and granted Ukraine the association agreemeent anyway.

This has led to a lot of hostility between the Netherlands and Turkey. One of Erdogan's favourite things is to blame the Netherlands for the Srebrenica massacre.

Srebrenica is the one genocide where the international community has not sought the death penalty for the perperators. Erdogan will no doubt claim this is a part of an anti-Muslim conspiracy if the death penalty is sought for captured ISIL members.

Personally I think it's appalling that the only genocide where the death penalty has not been sought is the one where the victims have been Muslim. It something I look forward correcting in response to ISIL's genocide against Muslims.

19:50 on 18/3/19 (UK date).

Jacinda Mania Kills Again.

On Friday March 15th (15/3/19) mass shootings occurred at two Mosques within the city of Christchurch in New Zealand.

New Zealand is located close the the international date line. So this occurred overnight in Europe and in the late evening of Thursday March 14th (14/3/19) in the US.

A problem familiar to those who were attending the 2018 Winter Olympics in the Republic of Korea (RoK/South). When the February 14th 2018 (14/2/18) Parklands mass shooting occurred in the US.

I can't help but note there is a Parklands district of Christchurch. Right next to Bottle Lake.

New Zealand is currently governed by the Labour Party. Under Prime Minister Jacinda Arden.

Prime Minister Arden is very much in the "Progressive Democrat" school of politicians.

A grouping which includes former US President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron. These Progressive Democrats are also widely represented amongst the Remoaner grouping in the current British debate over Brexit.

The main mantra of the Progressive Democrats is that; "It's not what you do which matters. All that matters is how you make people feel." 

As a result they nurture a cult of personality around their leaders. They then promote identity politics as a way to divide the electorate into different warring tribes. Presenting themselves as the only way to protect the warring tribes from each other.

Prime Minister Arden is most famous as the second national leader to give birth whilst in office and the second national leader to take maternity leave while in office. Although she'll try and convince you that she was the first.

So Jacinda Arden's main achievement as New Zealand's Prime Minister has been not turning up to work as New Zealand's Prime Minister for six weeks.

Details of today's shooting are still emerging.

We know for a fact that 49 people have been killed. However five people were initially arrested but one of those has already been cleared of any involvement and released. While one person has been charged.

It seems though that the person charged was the gunman. It also seems that he was motivated by an extreme anti-Muslim agenda. Possibly a far-right or Neo-Nazi agenda.

As such it appears highly likely that this shooting was motivated, at least in part, by the current global furore surrounding what to do with members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) recently taken prisoner by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

This is a topic that I've been delayed in addressing directly for a while now.

Partly because it is an extremely complex topic. Military law is every bit a complex as criminal law. Criminal law is a topic people spend their entire professional lives on. Even without the added complication of having to work between different national jurisdictions.

This week I've been especially delayed by Britain's continuing Brexit saga. A particularly bitter irony because it was Britain that set this fire. Through its focus on the case of Shamima Begum.

It must be said that the response by western journalists and politicians, particularly the Progressive Democrats, has been outrageous.

Astonishingly offensive to every right thinking person. Particularly Muslims.

For years Islamist terrorism has been dominated by Al Qaeda. Their strategy has been based around dividing society into three distinct spaces;

There is the white space. This is populated by ideologically 'pure' Muslims who agree with Al Qaeda. There is the black space. This is populated by the infidels, essentially non-Muslims. Then there is the grey space. This is an area where Muslims and non-Muslims peacefully coexist.

The purpose of Al Qaeda terrorism has been to destroy this grey space. Specifically by carrying out attacks so heinous the provoke non-Muslims to retaliate against Muslims. The idea being that this will force Muslims to retreat into the white space, joining Al Qaeda.

So whenever there has been an Al Qaeda attack western politicians have moved to counter the backlash. By coming out and declaring that Al Qaeda do not represent Muslims or Islam.

That's never been quite true.

Al Qaeda represent as very extreme interpretation of Islam. One which is considered abhorrent and abnormal by around 99% of the World's Muslims. However there is an ideological consistency to Al Qaeda's beliefs which means that it is a part of Islam. Although not one I can say I agree with.

In this sense ISIL are very different from Al Qaeda. ISIL's theological justifications for their actions read as though someone has simply opened up the Wikipedia page on Islam. Then cut & paste completely random phrases into a press release.

So when we say that ISIL are not Muslims it isn't some half-truth or propaganda trick. It is simply a statement of fact. ISIL are not Muslims.

The biggest backlash against ISIL has come from within Muslim communities themselves.

For example the UK claimed that Shamima Begum was a citizen of the Muslim majority nation of Bangladesh. Bangladesh's response to this was to strongly deny that she was either a Muslim or one their citizens. Completely washing their hands of her.

I can't help but note that the Bangladesh cricket team are currently in Christchurch. Preparing for a test match against the New Zealand cricket team.

Pakistan, as another majority Muslim nation, recently seems to have gone to extreme measures. To suggest to the west that if its politicians and journalists cannot behave responsibly then perhaps a broadcast ban needs to be imposed on the likes of Shamima Begum.

A particularly offensive thing western journalists and politicians have done in relation to Shamima Begum and other captured ISIL members is to refer to them as; "Jihadis." Or "Jihadi" brides.

Within Islam "Jihad" means; "Struggle." For the overwhelming majority of Muslims it refers to the internal struggle against sin. It is only to extremists such as Al Qaeda and ISIL that it means an external, armed struggle against non-believers.

Even the Prophet himself returned from a battle and told his followers; "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad." By which he meant the major internal struggle against sin.

By referring to captured ISIL members as; "Jihadis" western journalists are legitimising their violent acts as somehow part of Islam. Going against almost the entire Muslim world who have told them, time and time again, not to use the term.

The other astonishingly offensive thing that western politicians and journalists have done is claim that captured ISIL members should not be punished for their crime. Despite those crimes being amongst the absolute worst the modern world has ever seen.

Progressive Democrats in particular do this simply to further their own agenda.

They've convinced a certain tribe that the World is full of a dangerous other - "Islamaphobes" in this case. So now they're trying to show that only they are prepared to protect that tribe. By being benevolent and helping the captured ISIL members escape justice.

Although this may win them votes with one particular tribe in doing this politicians are sending a much clearer message to everyone else in society.

That message is that the government/state is not prepared to protect you. So you must protect yourself from the Muslim invaders.

This is exactly the message that Al Qaeda is trying to send through their attacks. It is exactly the objective they are trying to achieve.

I am the person that can tell you all about Al Qaeda's ideology and strategy.

I am also the person who can assure that the overwhelming majority of the people been fighting and dying to defeat ISIL in Syria and Iraq are Muslims.

In writing about the different units involved in the war against ISIL I could point out which ones are Muslim. That though is the rule rather than the exception. So it's about as redundant as me point out which ones of them are people.

Despite every time I hear a political or journalist claim captured ISIL members should not be punished it makes my Islamaphobia rise. To the point of wanting to do violence to random Muslims.

You really have to worry about what it's doing to be people who don't have my experience of living and working amongst Muslims.

Prime Minister Arden has already rushed to label today's attacks as; "Terrorism."

In a vapid attempt to appeal to voters who demand to know why white gunmen are not labelled terrorist. Something which itself is an attempt to divide the electorate into warring tribes. Warring tribes that only the likes of Prime Minister Arden can protect each other from.

In practical terms labelling something as terrorism or not is almost completely pointless.

The purpose of criminal investigation/trial is to determine whether a person has committed a series of specific, individual acts. Acts, such as killing someone, which are expressly forbidden by law. Once you've proved that someone has committed the specific acts why they've done it really doesn't matter.

Despite all the TV cop shows you'd be surprised how little Courts actually care about someones' motive for committing a crime.

Labelling something as terrorism can actually be massively counter-productive.

There is an old saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This is entirely true.

During the Second World War the allied powers established an extensive network of resistance cells. To fight a guerrilla war across Nazi occupied Europe and North Africa.

Amongst the allied nations these resistance fighters are treated as heroes. However if you read the contemporary Nazi reports of their actions they are described simply as terrorists.

So while labelling someone as a terrorist may smear them in the eyes of your supporters it may well elevate them to hero status in the eyes of their supporters.

A prime example of this is the 1981 Hunger Strike by Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) prisoners. Led by Bobby Sands.

The PIRA prisoners claim was that they were freedom fighters battling against the oppressive British occupation of Northern Ireland. As such they wanted special prisoner status. Essentially to be recognised as terrorists.

The position of the British government was that; "Crime is crime is crime, it is not political.” Treating the men as common criminals in order to deny them the legitimacy of be called terrorists.

In the end Bobby Sands and all of the 10 hunger strikers starved themselves to death. In order to be recognised as terrorists.

So I'm of the opinion that if you want to be recognised as a terrorist you need to go a hell of a lot further to prove your commitment to your cause then gunning down civilians at prayer.

At around 15:25 on 15/3/19 (UK date) I'll pick this up later.

Edited at around 16:10 on 15/3/19 (UK date) to add above and below;

Whether something is treated as terrorism or not is really only relevant on an operational level during the investigation. It determines what resources are brought to bear to identify any wider threat and eliminate those threats.

A prime example of this was the shooting in San Bernardino, California, US in December 2015.

Then President Obama was very opposed to treating this as a terrorist attack. Instead he wanted it treated simply as an example of workplace gun violence. Something which fitted with his gun control agenda.

As a result of Obama's opposition the FBI were initially prevented from bringing their vast resources to bear. Leaving the investigation in the hands of the local police.

This meant one of the conspirators, Enrique Marquez Jr, was able to check himself into hospital and avoid questioning for several days. A delay which is unacceptable if there's a ticking bomb out there waiting to go off.

The San Bernardino shooting was one of a wave of attacks carried out by ISIL in November/December 2015.

At the time ISIL were a large network with hundreds of thousands of members controlling large areas of territory in Syria and Iraq. The resources brought to bear to eliminate that network have not been law enforcement but military.

At the time Obama was continuing to support the ISIL network. Arming it through the Train & Equip program. So one of the main tasks to eliminate the threat from the wider ISIL network was getting Obama to acknowledge that it was a threat and stop him from supporting it.

We are still waiting for all the details of today's shooting in New Zealand to emerge. Therefore I'm not happy talking about the specifics of the case. It does though seem to bear a lot of similarities to other far-right, Neo-Nazi inspired attacks.

Far-right and Neo-Nazi terror networks are tiny to the point of being insignificant compared to ISIL. One of the largest in the US is the Atomwaffen Division. They are literally 80 guys with access to a computer and a printer.

What they do have is a larger number of sympathisers. People who are not members or any group or organisation but read the propaganda and news coverage online.

By labelling attacks such as the October 2018 Tree of Life Synagogue shooting as terrorism you are legitimising and reinforcing that propaganda. Increasing the chances of a casual reader being motivated to carry out a lone-wolf style attack.

So by treating that sort of attack as terrorism you're not identifying wider threats and eliminating them. Instead you're creating a network were no network existed and creating new threats where none existed.

It is being reported that the gunman in today's shooting was inspired by Anders Breivik. Who carried out a Neo-Nazi motivated mass shooting and bomb attack in Norway in July 2011.

Breivik's case is frequently pointed to by those who wish to help captured ISIL members evade justice. They demand to know why Breivik was tried under civilian law while captured ISIL members are to be tried under military law.

I very vividly remember the Breivik case. To the point that in 2018 two movies came out about it. I found that not only couldn't I bring myself to watch the movies I couldn't bring myself to read reviews of the movies.

The Breivik case presented a massive challenge the Norwegian legal system. Under Norwegian law the maximum punishment you can receive for any offence is 20 years in prison. That's because crimes such as Breivik's simply do not happen in Norway.

Breivik described himself as a soldier in a war. As a result there was a very serious discussion over trying him as an unlawful combatant under military law. Something which potentially would have allowed him to be executed.

The big argument against doing this is that despite Breivik's claims there was absolutely no evidence of him being part of a wider network or army. Therefore granting him legitimacy by trying him under military law might inspire sympathisers reading about him online to think of themselves as soldiers in his war and carry out further attacks.

Plus Norway found a legal loophole. Which prevents Breivik being released while he is still considered a threat to the public. Potentially meaning a whole life term.

The landscape of Nazi and Neo-Nazi politics in Europe has changed dramatically since 2011. The key event was former US President Obama's decision to use Nazis and Neo-Nazis to overthrow Ukraine's government in January 2014.

Since then western governments have sought to legitimise the Nazi and Neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine. Particularly in the ensuring civil war in which the Nazis and Neo-Nazis have been trying to wipe out Ukraine's ethnically Russian and, increasingly ethnically Hungarian population.

This was has drawn in Nazi and Neo-Nazis from across Europe and the US. Allowing them to establish networks and a territorial base within Ukraine. Although they are still on absolutely nowhere near the scale ISIL were in 2015.

If the links to Breivik are true I certainly have no problem with the gunman in today's attacks in New Zealand tried under military law. As an unlawful combatant in Ukraine's civil war.

I suspect though that idea is going to meet with very strong opposition from Canada, the US, Europe and anyone else who has supported Ukraine's Nazis and Neo-Nazis.

So it is not simply enough to say that Neo-Nazi extremists and ISIL extremists are two sides of the same coin.

In Ukraine the two groups literally fight shoulder-to-shoulder together.

Against Russia, and anyone else who opposes the Muslim Brotherhood's territorial aspirations.

17:20 on 15/3/19 (UK date).