Extremists make life hell

16
AIR TRAVEL: Increased security due to terrorism has taken the joy out of travelling.

BY now it must be painfully obvious, even to the ‘luvvies,’ that the extremists of Daesh are hellbent on making life on our beautiful planet a living hell.

Every aspect of their existence is firmly geared toward turning the miracle of our glorious human manifestation into one that is evil, utterly lacklustre and totally devoid of all its happiness, love and fun, and boy is it succeeding!

It has managed to repress the glamour and personality of its female members: restrict dancing and singing: all but destroy the wonderful joys of travelling, particularly by air (who can forget the heart-lifting excitement of being invited into the cockpit by the pilots of yore?).

It has blighted our holiday destinations and beaches with death, destruction and the sight of oppressed women in Burkinis.  It has attacked our sporting events, slaughtered people enjoying shopping malls and made just about every happy public occasion a reason to keep glancing over our shoulders in case a rampaging gunman or suicide bomber is sidling up behind us. 

There is of course a method in their undoubted madness. The more horrific they make the earthly journey, the easier it is to induct new recruits into their twisted organisation. Promises of heavenly paradise are far more easily welcomed by those whose lives are hardly worth waking up for. The most ludicrous of all is of course the 72 virgin offers. 

What I would like to know is what they offer female terrorists? Seventy-two virgin Brad Pitt lookalikes? Ha! If it weren’t so serious it would be laughable. 

But it is of course, deadly serious. We must never waver in our firm commitment to wipe this evil from the face of our Earth; thereby allowing us to enjoy its glorious gifts and simply take our own chances on any possible life hereafter.

Keep the faith.

Love Leapy    
[email protected]

16 COMMENTS

  1. Well said Leapy! I for one think its time the United Nations got off its fat backside and eradicated this.
    The last time they went into action to save a country was in 1950 when they stopped the invasion of South Korea by the communists.
    Now half the world is under threat and they sit on their fat backsides doing nothing. We might as well disband the whole thing, for it is a waste of time and money.

    Your turn Brian!!!!!!

  2. The “Luvvies” you refer to, Leapy, have never loved Daesh and you know it you old stirrer. The truth is quite the reverse. Nobody in their right mind would love violent thugs. Would they? What a stupid thing to mention.

    At least you are finally making the distinction between those murderous terrorists  who are twisting a peaceful religious faith into something nasty and violent for their own evil ends – and the rest of the people who just want to be allowed to pray in safety like normal worshippers of ANY religion. Except many of them have to duck Russian, Syrian and even American bombs on their way these days… No wonder they’re desperate to get to safer countries like ours!

    You spoil it however by raising the stupid burkini issue yet again. It does reveal the face and hands just like a nun’s uniform – or a school uniform for that matter! Only last week you declared your support for forcing uniforms on school children or else turning them away until they come back looking exactly the same as each other! So a bit of inconsistency there over one type of enforced clothing being ok while another is not. That’s your usual one-sided sloppy-thinking and prejudice rising to the surface again Leapy. You just can’t resist your compulsive instincts, even to this day.

    But hey, there’s hope for you yet… maybe. Just try to think a bit harder before you write in future. Focus that narrow mind of yours on the wider picture before your fingers touch the keyboard.

  3. This is an extract from Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon’s final speech to the United Nations before he steps down, “Extremists push people into camps of ‘us’ and ‘them’.”

    Quite.

    He has also attacked world leaders who continue to “feed the war machine”, saying “the bar of depravity” has continued to sink lower and lower.

    Trouble is whoever takes over from him now faces the same hamstrung UN organisation that has been there since the beginning. It has no power to intervene and bring peace to any war-torn region when powerful UN Security Council members like Russia, America and China have the power of veto. In that sense Roy, you are quite right. It might as well not be there for all the ability it has to make anything better. Even its UNHCR aid convoys for the starving people of Syria are being destroyed by either Russia, Syria, or America depending on who you believe.

    But what would you replace the UN with? And how would you go about it? Big questions. No easy answers. Trump will fix it though, won’t he? He can fix anything!
    😉

  4. In my view Brian the first thing the UN should do is get rid of the veto. Certain countries have too much power, and many of the world’s problems could have been solved if this did not exist.
    Unfortunately no proposal has been put forward yet to form an international army to go into places like Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and Afghanistan etc. to rid the world of these terrorists forces. So in effect we don’t know if any of the countries that hold a veto would vote against such a thing.
    In my view, if they vote against they should be ignored, and all the other countries should band together to wipe out these terrorists. They are active in 165 countries across the world, and all with one aim, to turn the world population into followers of Islam.
    It is only in this way that the world can return to peace and the people saved. If the fighting in Iraq and Syria among others were to be overcome, all the refugees could be returned home which would release a huge burden on Europe.

  5. I’m of the same opinion Roy that Daesh needs to be destroyed completely. Whatever else you or Leapy might think, I accept that. But how?

    Only the collective might of, say, NATO could eradicate Daesh. The notion that the UN should try it is just daft.

    It would be a difficult and prolonged all-out war. Daesh is as well funded as any nation state. It has captured advanced western weaponry and munitions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya… and is acquiring more. The fighting would be on many fronts, with our over-stretched and exhausted soldiers putting their boots on the ground again and fighting in the streets. There would be many more deaths than there have been already, including many more civilians.

    Things could get even worse if Russia and/or China took such a dim view of all this that they became involved militarily against the NATO countries. Israel would use the opportunity to attack Iran’s nuclear sites, which it has been threatening to do for some time, and this would spill over to involve  many neighbouring Arab nations.

    Then we would really be in trouble! It would be nothing less than WW III. A nice legacy for our children and grandchildren.

    See, I can be an even better doom-monger than Leapy if I want to be!
    😉

  6. Brian, I don’t think NATO is the right force to end Islamic State. It should be a combined international force from the UN as in Korea in 1950.
    As I said, they are active in 165 countries across the globe and it will take an international force to root them out.

  7. Roy, I confess I’m rather puzzled by your reply. I’m not sure you fully understand the entirely different purposes and natures of the UN and NATO.

    The United Nations is an organisation created expressly to promote peace. It has no army of its own as such. It is simply a gathering of very individual and disparate nations, all with their own different agendas and intentions. The five members of the UN Security Council will never, ever be persuaded under any circumstances to give up their power of veto – Russia, America, China, UK, France. Can you imagine the very idea of these powerful nations rolling over and saying “tickle my tummy?” No chance!

    The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the other hand is an entirely military alliance of 28 member countries all sworn to defend each other from military attack on any individual member nation.

    Spot the difference.

    The UN does not go to war. It is really just a talking shop. It is there to try to prevent wars.

    NATO is ready, willing and able to go to war if any member country is attacked. Why it hasn’t already done so against Daesh is rather surprising – to me anyway. I thought for example Russia’s shooting down of the passenger plane during its war in Ukraine would have sparked NATO involvement, but it didn’t. NATO is acting in a very restrained manner so far.

    It can only be a matter of time. God help us.

  8. Also Roy, I don’t see how you think the Korean War was a victory for the UN. Here’s what really happened.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

    You’ll note the UN initially tried to stop the conflict. When this became impossible a resolution to assist South Korea was tabled and led by America. However the outcome was China and the former Soviet Union actually giving military support to North Korea against America and its allies even though all three were, and still are, permanent members of the UN Security Council. (The former Soviet Union having now shrunk to only Russia of course.) The end result was a military stalemate that persists to this day with North Korea still conducting sporadic hostilities and testing nuclear bombs and missiles intending to use them at some point in the near future!

    This was hardly a victory for the UN, then or now, and it has no bearing whatsoever on the current situation with Daesh.

    There is the possibility however that existing Daesh rebel fighters in Syria might spread into neighbouring Turkey. As a full member of NATO, if Turkey found itself fighting Daesh on its own soil then the other NATO members might be required to assist in its defence, although so far there is no NATO involvement against the Kurds which Turkey is currently fighting on its own soil. Again NATO is showing restraint.

  9. Brian, if the UN had not stepped in to assist Korea then the whole peninsular would be under the control of the communist regime of the north. I agree it was not an out and out victory because they were fighting both Russia and China as well, but it did save South Korea.
    The main aim of the UN is to ENSURE WORLD PEACE which it is not doing and has not done since the Korean war. I quote:- “The UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” It can call on member states to provide a fighting force whenever needed, that is part of its mandate!
    NATO is an organisation that ensures peace in Europe. It does not have a mandate to interfere in conflicts in other countries, even though its air forces are currently active in the Middle East by common consent.
    NATO is not big enough to send forces all across the world to fight the terrorists threat, as I said they are active in 165 countries, including China. It may well be legal for them to protect Turkey if Islamic State invade but that is all.
    Without a UN mandate to stop the spread of Islamic State it will never end.
    So far as the veto is concerned, that is something that was initiated when it was first formed just after the Second World War but is way out of date now. If all the countries got together and voted for the end of the veto there is nothing the top countries could do about it.

  10. Roy, you say “If all the countries got together and voted for the end of the (Security Council nations’) veto(s) there is nothing the top countries could do about it.” Sorry, the way the UN is structured would not allow that. It is completely dominated by the 5 countries deemed to have won WW II. Wishful thinking is all very well, but it needs to be accompanied by a dose of reality.

    As for the rest of your contribution, I also wrote previously that the main aim of the UN is to promote peace. You and I are actually in agreement there. So how can you possibly justify wanting an organisation for peace to launch a war? This is a fundamental contradiction. The UN has no remit to go to war against Daesh or anyone else. Even the defence of South Korea against North Korea was not launched by the UN. It was America wot did it! – against 2 other members, China and the Soviets. If the UN Security Council was so split that it was warring within itself, how could that make the UN as a whole responsible for it? Doesn’t make sense.

    As for NATO, I’m only pointing out that we could stumble into a big war if things escalate in the member country, Turkey. This is a distinct possibility with Daesh at war in Iraq and Syria which both border onto Turkey. Drive them out of there into Turkey and what happens? It’s not rocket science.

    Forgive me Roy, but I think you need to research your chosen subject more carefully before you write anything further.

  11. That’s a cop out Roy. We would all like to see some kind of Utopia. You, Leapy, me, everybody.

    Trouble is, Utopia to a Neo-Nazi is a world without Jews. Utopia to an anti-Islamic racist is a world without Muslims. Utopia to Daesh is a world without anything but Daesh. Utopia to Brexit Brits is a world without the EU and a world without refugees and migrants.

    Get the picture? If we can’t even agree on what Utopia is how will we ever get there?

    Simple answers are just that… Simple!

    So next time you feel like hailing Mr Graham’s latest miserable grump with, “Well said Leapy!” again. Ask yourself first, what’s so fabulous about constantly complaining and whining about the likes of  Daesh and all the awful things in life? We all know about these awful things anyway! We don’t need HIM to keep ranting on about them like some sort of Screaming Lord Haw-Haw! Why does he never write anything positive about humanity? He seems to have a reasonably good life these days. I suppose you do too. I certainly do!

    So, both of you… instead of just complaining all the time, try joining us in a better world than the dismal place “Leapy” Lee Graham seems to inhabit. It’s not Utopia. It’s far from perfect. But it’s a lot more fun!

  12. Like I said before Brian, you seem to have it in for Leapy because you complain about everything he writes.
    Just leave it alone even if you don’t agree with what he says.
    Everyone has a right to their opinion the same as you, but if you don’t like what he writes just ignore it. I am pretty sure that very many people are tired of the way you consistently get at him.
    I am not going to reply to any more of your messages and will continue to agree with what Leapy says whenever I feel like it!

  13. So what you’re telling me now Roy is to just shut up and leave Leapy to say whatever he likes! Charming!

    I have already justified my right of reply elsewhere. That’s all I ever do Roy – reply. He starts it with his narrow-minded column and I reply. In your case you write something like, “Well said Leapy” or “Well done Leapy” etc. etc. and again all I do is reply. It’s called freedom of speech.

    Don’t put the cart before the horse Roy and don’t you ever again tell me to shut up no matter how nicely you phrase it.

  14. I used to enjoy a browse thru Leapy’s page with a few choice comments below.
    But he has been usurped by a know it all, who writes 6 times more self opinionated tripe than ever leapy does.
    I suggest the gentleman is a frustrated journalist, who wishes his personal views of life to be aired. I have stopped reading the comments. But I still enjoy Leapy’s light tirades. It’s up to the reader if they like them or agree with them. One thing is certain. No matter how much knowledge one might have, we will not convince Leapy to change his colours. He has nailed them to the mast and we all know what to expect from him.
    If you don’t like it, ignore it. As you appear to do with the Islamic invasion of the west.

  15. [quote]I used to enjoy a browse thru Leapy’s page with a few choice comments below.
    But he has been usurped by a know it all, who writes 6 times more self opinionated tripe than ever leapy does.
    I suggest the gentleman is a frustrated journalist, who wishes his personal views of life to be aired. I have stopped reading the comments. But I still enjoy Leapy’s light tirades. It’s up to the reader if they like them or agree with them. One thing is certain. No matter how much knowledge one might have, we will not convince Leapy to change his colours. He has nailed them to the mast and we all know what to expect from him.
    If you don’t like it, ignore it. As you appear to do with the Islamic invasion of the west.[/quote]
    How I agree with you re the frustrated journalist, I find it quite sad that his life appears to be dedicated to Leapys column, his warped outlook, his denial of the world as it really is..quite sad really. I no longer read his comments, I would suggest people just put him on ignore and let him rant to himself

LEAVE A COMMENT

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here